Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002

Juvenile Court
Statistics 2001–2002
The National Juvenile Court
Data Archive online
The annual Juvenile Court

Statistics report series is
one of many products
supported by the National
Juvenile Court Data
Archive. To learn more,
visit the Archive Web site.
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/
◆ The Archive Web site was developed to inform researchers about available data
sets and the procedures for use and access. Visitors can view and download user
guides to data sets housed in the Archive and search for data sets that meet
specific research interests. In addition, the site includes links to publications
based on analyses of Archive data.
◆ Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive Web-based application

that allows users to analyze the actual databases that are used to produce the
Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users can explore in detail trends of and
relationships among a youth’s demographics and referral offenses, and the
court’s detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Results of analyses
can be saved and imported into spreadsheet and word processing software. This
application is available from the “Links” section on the Archive Web site.
◆ Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts gives users quick
access to multiple years of state and county juvenile court case counts for
delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This application is available
from the “Links” section on the Archive Web site.
Juvenile Court
Statistics
2001–2002
Report
Anne L. Stahl
Charles Puzzanchera
Anthony Sladky
Terrence A. Finnegan
Nancy Tierney
Howard N. Snyder
National Center for Juvenile Justice

December 2005
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 i

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
Regina B. Schofield
Assistant Attorney General
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by grant number 1999–MU–MU–0020
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Copyright 2005, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA,
15203–2363. ISSN 0091–3278.
Suggested citation: Stahl, Anne L., Charles Puzzanchera, Anthony Sladky, Terrence A. Finnegan, Nancy
Tierney, and Howard N. Snyder. 2005. Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center
for Juvenile Justice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Foreword
The Nation’s juvenile courts play a critical role in the response to juvenile
crime and the problems of offenders, victims, and the community. When
responding to delinquent behavior, the courts become significantly involved in
the lives of juveniles, and the impact of these interventions can last a lifetime.
Although courts do impose sanctions, they also provide the necessary
resources to increase the youth's competency to cope and succeed. The pur-
pose of the juvenile court is not only to protect society but also to afford juve-
nile offenders opportunities to develop into functioning members of society.
To ensure informed decisionmaking and policy development, the juvenile court

must stay abreast of evolving social trends. It is important that the court un-
derstand the changing nature of the offenders who come before it as well as
the nature, availability, and effects of the resources that are required to help
these youth.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 profiles more than 1.6 million delinquency
cases handled by courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 2002 and describes trends
since 1985. It also includes state- and county-level data for both 2001 and 2002.
The data in this report provide a detailed portrait of the juvenile court and a
frame of reference for policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and others
who share concern for the future of our youth.
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 iii

Acknowledgments
This Report is a product of the Na- agencies contributed case-level data

tional Juvenile Court Data Archive, or court-level aggregate statistics for
which is funded by grants to the Na- this Report:
tional Center for Juvenile Justice from
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Alabama—State of Alabama, Adminis-
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), trative Office of the Courts.
U.S. Department of Justice. Janet
Chiancone is the OJJDP Program Alaska—Alaska Division of Juvenile
Manager for the project. Justice and the Alaska Court System.
The entire staff of the National Juve- Arizona—Supreme Court, State of

nile Court Data Archive contributes Arizona, Administrative Office of the
to the collection and processing of Courts; and the Maricopa County
the data presented in this Report: Juvenile Court Center.
Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior Arkansas—Administrative Office of

Computer Programmer the Courts, State of Arkansas.
Charles Puzzanchera, Research
Associate California—Judicial Council of Cali-
fornia Administrative Office of the
Brian Sabotta, Computer Programmer Courts; the California Department of
Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics
Anthony Sladky, Computer Center; and the following county pro-
Programmer bation departments: Alameda, Los
Angeles, Marin, Orange, San Bernar-
Jason Smith, Computer Programmer dino, San Diego, San Francisco, San
Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara,
Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Project
Stanislaus, and Ventura.
Director
Anne L. Stahl, Project Manager Colorado—Colorado Judicial

Department.
Nancy Tierney, Executive Assistant
Connecticut—Judicial Branch Admin-
Juvenile Court Statistics would not be istration, Court Support Services
possible were it not for the state and Division.
local agencies that take the time each
year to honor our requests for data Delaware—Family Court, State of
and documentation. The following Delaware.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 v

Acknowledgments
District of Columbia—Superior Court Michigan— State Court Administra- Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of

of the District of Columbia. tive Office, Michigan Supreme Court. Juvenile Affairs.
Florida—State of Florida Department Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme Oregon—Judicial Department;

of Juvenile Justice. Court Information System. and Office of the State Court
Administrator.
Georgia—Judicial Council of Georgia Mississippi—Mississippi Department
Administrative Office of the Courts; of Human Services, Division of Youth Pennsylvania—Juvenile Court
and Georgia Council of Juvenile and Services. Judges’ Commission.
Family Court Judges.
Missouri—Department of Social Rhode Island—Administrative
Hawaii— Family Court of the First Services, Division of Youth Office of State Courts and Rhode
Circuit, The Judiciary, State of Services. Island Family Court.
Hawaii.
Montana—Montana Board of Crime South Carolina—Department of
Idaho—Idaho Supreme Court. Control. Juvenile Justice.
Illinois—Administrative Office of the Nebraska—Nebraska Crime South Dakota—Unified Judicial

Illinois Courts, Probation Services Commission. System.
Division; and the Juvenile Court of
Cook County. Nevada—Division of Child and Family Tennessee—Tennessee Council of
Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Indiana—Supreme Court of Indiana, Office.
Division of State Court Administration; Texas—Texas Juvenile Probation
and Marion County Superior Court. New Hampshire—New Hampshire Commission.
Supreme Court, Administrative
Iowa—State Court Administrator; and Office of the Courts. Utah—Utah Administrative Office of
the Department of Human Rights. the Courts.
New Jersey—Administrative
Kansas— Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of the Courts. Vermont—Vermont Supreme Court,
Office of Judicial Administration. Judiciary Data Warehouse.
New Mexico—Children, Youth and
Kentucky—Kentucky Administrative Families Department. Virginia—Department of Juvenile
Office of the Courts. Justice and the Virginia Supreme
New York—Office of Court Adminis- Court.
Louisiana—Judicial Council of the tration; and the State of New York,
Supreme Court of Louisiana; and Division of Probation and Correction- Washington—Office of the
Youth Services, Office of Youth al Alternatives. Administrator for the Courts.
Development.
North Carolina—Administrative West Virginia—Criminal Justice
Maine—Administrative Office of the Office of the Courts. Statistical Analysis Center.
Courts.
North Dakota—Supreme Court, Office Wisconsin—Supreme Court of
Maryland—Department of Juvenile of State Court Administrator. Wisconsin.
Justice.
Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio; Ohio Wyoming—Supreme Court of
Massachusetts—Administrative Department of Youth Services; and Wyoming Court Services.
Office of the Courts. the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
Division.
vi Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... v
Preface ........................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases ............................................ 5
Counts and Trends ................................................................................................ 6
Case Rates .............................................................................................................. 8
Age at Referral ...................................................................................................... 9
Gender .................................................................................................................. 12
Race ...................................................................................................................... 18
Source of Referral ................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing ........................ 25
Detention .............................................................................................................. 26
Intake Decision .................................................................................................... 30
Waiver .................................................................................................................... 34
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 39
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement .............................................................. 44
Dispositions: Probation ...................................................................................... 48
Case Processing
Overview ........................................................................................................ 52
By Offense Category ...................................................................................... 54
By Age ............................................................................................................ 56
By Gender ...................................................................................................... 57
By Race ............................................................................................................ 58
By FBI Offense Category .............................................................................. 60
By Selected Individual Offense .................................................................... 61
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases .......................................... 65
Age ........................................................................................................................ 66
Gender and Race .................................................................................................. 67
Detention .............................................................................................................. 68
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 70
Disposition ............................................................................................................ 71
Case Processing .................................................................................................. 72
Appendix A: Methods .............................................................................................. 73
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms .............................................................................. 79
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed
in 2001 and 2002, by County .............................................................................. 85
2001 Cases ............................................................................................................ 87
2002 Cases .......................................................................................................... 109
Table Notes ........................................................................................................ 131
Index of Tables and Figures .................................................................................... 139
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 vii

Preface
This is the 75th report in the Juvenile courts participating in the reporting
Court Statistics series. It describes the series. The Children’s Bureau (within
delinquency and status offense cases the U.S. Department of Labor) tabu-
handled between 1985 and 2002 by lated the information on each card,
U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction.1 including age, gender, and race of the
National estimates of juvenile court juvenile; the reason for referral; the
delinquency caseloads in 2002 were manner of dealing with the case; and
based on analyses of 1,047,793 auto- the final disposition of the case. Dur-
mated case records and court-level ing the 1940s, however, the collection
statistics summarizing an additional of case-level data was abandoned be-
69,633 cases. Status offense case pro- cause of its high cost. From the 1940s
files were based on 18 years of peti- until the mid-1970s, Juvenile Court
tioned status offense case records, Statistics reports were based on the
including 2002 data submitted on simple, annual case counts reported
101,812 automated case-level records to the Children’s Bureau by partici-
and court-level summary statistics on pating courts.
an additional 14,665 cases. The data
used in the analyses were contribut- In 1957, the Children’s Bureau initiat-
ed to the National Juvenile Court Da- ed a new data collection design that
ta Archive by more than 2,000 courts enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics
with jurisdiction over 75% of the juve- series to develop statistically sound,
nile population in 2002. national estimates. The Children’s Bu-
reau, which had been transferred to
The first Juvenile Court Statistics re- the U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
port was published in 1929 by the tion, and Welfare (HEW), developed a
U.S. Department of Labor and de- probability sample of more than 500
scribed cases handled by 42 courts courts. Each court in the sample was
during 1927. During the next decade, asked to submit annual counts of de-
Juvenile Court Statistics reports were linquency, status offense, and depen-
based on statistics cards completed dency cases. This design proved diffi-
for each delinquency, status offense, cult to sustain as courts began to
and dependency case handled by the drop out of the sample. At the same
time, a growing number of courts out-
side the sample began to compile
1 This Report is a combined edition for 2001 comparable statistics. By the late
and 2002. The national estimates and analy- 1960s, HEW ended the sample-based
ses focus on 2002, but the state- and county- effort and returned to the policy of
level caseload statistics in appendix C are collecting annual case counts from
presented separately for 2001 and 2002. any court able to provide them. The
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 ix

Preface
Juvenile Court Statistics series, how- by HEW to ensure reporting continu- court activity—the original objective
ever, continued to generate national ity, NCJJ also began to investigate of the Juvenile Court Statistics series.
estimates based on data from these methods of improving the quality and
nonprobability samples. detail of national statistics. A critical The project’s transition from using
innovation was made possible by the annual case counts to analyzing auto-
The Office of Juvenile Justice and De- proliferation of computers during the mated case-level data was completed
linquency Prevention (OJJDP) be- 1970s. As NCJJ asked agencies across with the production of Juvenile Court
came responsible for Juvenile Court the country to complete the annual Statistics 1984. For the first time since
Statistics following the passage of the juvenile court statistics form, some the 1930s, Juvenile Court Statistics
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- agencies began offering to send the contained detailed, case-level de-
vention Act of 1974. In 1975, OJJDP automated case-level data collected scriptions of the delinquency and sta-
awarded the National Center for Juve- by their management information sys- tus offense cases handled by U.S. ju-
nile Justice (NCJJ) a grant to continue tems. NCJJ learned to combine these venile courts. This case-level detail
the report series. Although NCJJ automated records to produce a de- continues to be the emphasis of the
agreed to use procedures established tailed national portrait of juvenile reporting series.
x Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Chapter 1
Introduction
This Report describes delinquency eventually merged the two referrals

and status offense cases handled be- for more efficient processing.
tween 1985 and 2002 by U.S. courts
with juvenile jurisdiction. Courts The fact that a case is “disposed”
with juvenile jurisdiction may handle means that a definite action was tak-
a variety of matters, including child en as the result of the referral—i.e., a
abuse and neglect, traffic violations, plan of treatment was selected or ini-
child support, and adoptions. This tiated. It does not mean necessarily
Report focuses on cases involving ju- that a case was closed or terminated
veniles charged with law violations in the sense that all contact between
(delinquency or status offenses). the court and the juvenile ceased. For
example, a case is considered to be
Unit of Count disposed when the court orders pro-
bation, not when a term of probation
In measuring the activity of juvenile supervision is completed.
courts, one could count the number
of offenses referred; the number of Coverage
cases referred; the actual filings of of-
fenses, cases, or petitions; the num- A basic question for this reporting se-
ber of disposition hearings; or the ries is what constitutes a referral to
number of juveniles handled. Each juvenile court. The answer partly de-
“unit of count” has its own merits pends on how each jurisdiction orga-
and disadvantages. The unit of count nizes its case-screening function. In
used in Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) many communities, all juvenile mat-
is the number of “cases disposed.” ters are first screened by an intake
unit within the juvenile court. The in-
A “case” represents a juvenile pro- take unit determines whether the
cessed by a juvenile court on a new matter should be handled informally
referral, regardless of the number of (i.e., diverted) or petitioned for for-
law violations contained in the refer- mal handling. In data files from com-
ral. A juvenile charged with four bur- munities using this type of system, a
glaries in a single referral would rep- delinquency or status offense case is
resent a single case. A juvenile defined as a court referral at the
referred for three burglaries and re- point of initial screening, regardless
ferred again the following week on of whether it is handled formally or
another burglary charge would repre- informally.
sent two cases, even if the court
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 1

Chapter 1: Introduction
In other communities, the juvenile mon framework. In order to analyze Adjudication. At the adjudicatory
court is not involved in delinquency and present data about juvenile court hearing, a juvenile may be adjudicat-
or status offense matters until anoth- activities in diverse jurisdictions, the ed (judged) a delinquent or status
er agency (e.g., the prosecutor’s of- Archive strives to fit the processing offender, and the case would then
fice or a social service agency) has characteristics of all jurisdictions into proceed to a disposition hearing. Al-
first screened the case. In other the following general model: ternatively, a case can be dismissed
words, the intake function is per- or continued in contemplation of
formed outside the court, and some Intake. Referred cases are first dismissal. In these cases, the court
matters are diverted to other agen- screened by an intake department (ei- often recommends that the juvenile
cies without the court ever handling ther within or outside the court). The take some actions prior to the final
them. Status offense cases, in particu- intake department may decide to dis- adjudication decision, such as paying
lar, tend to be diverted from court miss the case for lack of legal suffi- restitution or voluntarily attending
processing in this manner. ciency or to resolve the matter for- drug counseling.
mally or informally. Informal (i.e.,
Since its inception, Juvenile Court nonpetitioned) dispositions may in- Disposition. At the disposition hear-
Statistics has adapted to the changing clude a voluntary referral to a social ing, the juvenile court judge deter-
structure of juvenile court processing service agency, informal probation, or mines the most appropriate sanction,
nationwide. As court processing be- the payment of fines or some form of generally after reviewing a predisposi-
came more diverse, the JCS series voluntary restitution. Formally han- tion report prepared by a probation
broadened its definition of the juve- dled cases are petitioned and sched- department. The range of options
nile court to incorporate other uled for an adjudicatory or waiver available to a court typically includes
agencies that perform what can ge- hearing. commitment to an institution; place-
nerically be considered juvenile court ment in a group or foster home or
functions. In some communities, data Judicial Waiver. The intake depart- other residential facility; probation
collection has expanded to include ment may decide that a case should (either regular or intensive supervi-
departments of youth services, child be removed from juvenile court and sion); referral to an outside agency,
welfare agencies, and prosecutors’ of- handled instead in criminal (adult) day treatment, or mental health pro-
fices. In other communities, this ex- court. In such cases, a petition is usu- gram; or imposition of a fine, commu-
pansion has not been possible. There- ally filed in juvenile court asking the nity service, or restitution.
fore, while there is extensive coverage juvenile court judge to waive jurisdic-
in the JCS series of formally handled tion over the case. The juvenile court Detention. A juvenile may be placed
delinquency cases and adequate cov- judge decides whether the case mer- in a detention facility at different
erage of informally handled delin- its criminal prosecution.1 When a points as a case progresses through
quency cases, the coverage of status waiver request is denied, the matter the juvenile justice system. Detention
offense cases is limited and is not suf- is usually scheduled for an adjudica- practices also vary from jurisdiction
ficient to support the generation of tory hearing in the juvenile court. to jurisdiction. A judicial decision to
national estimates. For this reason, detain or continue detention may oc-
JCS reports present national estimates Petitioning. If the intake department cur before or after adjudication or
of the volume and trends in delinquen- decides that a case should be han- disposition. This Report includes
cy cases, but present only sample- dled formally within the juvenile only those detention actions that
based profiles of formally processed court, a petition is filed and the case result in a juvenile being placed in a
status offense cases and do not pres- is placed on the court calendar (or restrictive facility under court author-
ent any information on informally docket) for an adjudicatory hearing. ity while awaiting the outcome of the
handled status offense cases. (Sub- A small number of petitions are dis- court process. This Report does not
national analyses of these cases are missed for various reasons before an include detention decisions made by
available from the National Juvenile adjudicatory hearing is actually held. law enforcement officials prior to
Court Data Archive [the Archive].) court intake or those occurring after
the disposition of a case (e.g., tempo-
Juvenile Court Processing 1Mechanisms of transfer to criminal court rary holding of a juvenile in a deten-
vary by state. In some states, a prosecutor tion facility until a facility for the
has the authority to file juvenile cases that court-ordered placement is
Any attempt to describe juvenile
meet specified criteria directly in criminal
court caseloads at the national level available).
court. This Report, however, includes only
must be based on a generic model of cases that were initially under juvenile court
court processing to serve as a com- jurisdiction and were transferred as a result
of judicial waiver.
2 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Data Quality (UCR) Program is limited by necessi- population in 2002. The weighting
ty to a small number of relatively procedures that generate national es-
Juvenile Court Statistics relies on the broad offense codes. The UCR offense timates from this sample control for
secondary analysis of data originally code for larceny-theft combines many factors: the size of a communi-
compiled by juvenile courts or juve- shoplifting with a number of other ty; the demographic composition of
nile justice agencies to meet their larcenies. Thus, the data are useless its juvenile population; the volume of
own information and reporting needs. for studies of shoplifting. In compari- cases referred to the reporting
Although these incoming data files son, many of the Archive’s data sets courts; the age, gender, and race of
are not uniform across jurisdictions, are sufficiently detailed to enable a the juveniles involved; the offense
they are likely to be more detailed researcher to distinguish offenses characteristics of the cases; the
and accurate than data files compiled that are often combined in other courts’ responses to the cases (man-
by local jurisdictions merely comply- reporting series—shoplifting can be ner of handling, detention, adjudica-
ing with a mandated national report- distinguished from other larcenies, tion, and disposition); and the nature
ing program. joyriding from motor vehicle theft, of each court’s jurisdictional respon-
and armed robbery from unarmed sibilities (i.e., upper age of original
The heterogeneity of the contributed robbery. The diversity of these cod- jurisdiction).
data files greatly increases the com- ing structures allows researchers to
plexity of the Archive’s data process- construct data sets that contain the Structure of the Report
ing tasks. Contributing jurisdictions detail demanded by their research
collect and report information using designs. Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report pre-
their own definitions and coding cate- sent national estimates of delinquency
gories. Therefore, the detail reported Validity of the Estimates cases handled by the juvenile courts
in some data sets is not contained in in 2002 and also analyze caseload
others. Even when similar data ele- The national delinquency estimates trends from 1985. Chapter 2 describes
ments are used, they may have incon- presented in this Report were gener- the volume and rate of delinquency
sistent definitions or overlapping ated with data from a large nonproba- cases, sources of referral, demo-
coding categories. The Archive re- bility sample of juvenile courts. graphic characteristics of the juve-
structures contributed data into stan- Therefore, statistical confidence in niles involved (age, gender, and race),
dardized coding categories in order the estimates cannot be mathemati- and offenses charged. Chapter 3
to combine information from multiple cally determined. Although statistical traces the flow of delinquency cases
sources. The standardization process confidence would be greater if a prob- through the courts, examining each
requires an intimate understanding of ability sampling design were used, decision point (i.e., detention, intake
the development, structure, and con- the cost of such an effort has long decision, judicial decision, and judi-
tent of each data set received. Code- been considered prohibitive. Second- cial disposition) and including data
books and operation manuals are ary analysis of available data is the by demographic characteristics and
studied, data suppliers interviewed, best practical alternative for develop- offense. Together, these two chapters
and data files analyzed to maximize ing an understanding of the Nation’s provide a detailed national portrait of
the understanding of each informa- juvenile courts.2 delinquency cases.
tion system. Every attempt is made to
ensure that only compatible informa- National estimates for 2002 are based Chapter 4 presents a sample-based
tion from the various data sets is on analyses of individual case records profile of status offense cases formal-
used in standardized data files. from nearly 1,900 courts and aggre- ly handled by the juvenile courts
gate court-level data on cases from between 1985 and 2002. It includes
While the heterogeneity of the data more than 200 additional courts. data on demographic characteristics,
adds complexity to the development Together, these courts had jurisdic- offenses charged, and case processing.
of a national data file, it has proven to tion over 75% of the U.S. juvenile
be valuable in other applications. The Appendix A describes the statistical
diversity of the data stored in the Na- procedure used to generate these es-
2 For more detailed analyses of the JCS
tional Juvenile Court Data Archive en- timates. Readers are encouraged to
ables the data to support a wider national estimates and their accuracy, see:
Jeffrey A. Butts and Howard N. Snyder. 1995.
consult appendix B for definitions of
range of research efforts than would A Study to Assess the Validity of the National key terms used throughout the Re-
a uniform, and probably more gener- Estimates Developed for the Juvenile Court port. Few terms in the field of juve-
al, data collection form. For example, Statistics Series. Pittsburgh, PA: National nile justice have widely accepted defi-
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Center for Juvenile Justice. nitions. The terminology used in this
(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Report has been carefully developed

to communicate the findings of the system, the Archive’s data files are has been limited to runaway, truancy,
work as precisely as possible without available to policymakers, research- ungovernability, and liquor law viola-
sacrificing applicability to multiple ers, and students. In addition to nation cases only. The total petitioned
jurisdictions. tional data files, state and local data status offense analyses in this Report
can be provided to researchers. With include miscellaneous offenses,
Appendix C presents a detailed table the assistance of Archive staff, re- which are not analyzed independent-
showing the number of delinquency, searchers can merge selected files for ly, to provide an overall description
status offense, and dependency cases cross-jurisdictional and longitudinal of formally handled status offense
handled by juvenile courts in 2001 analyses. Upon request, project staff cases.
and 2002, by state and county. Table are also available to perform special
notes, at the end of the appendix, in- analyses of the Archive’s data files. Other Sources of Juvenile Court
dicate the source of the data and the Data
unit of count. Because courts report Researchers are encouraged to ex-
their statistical data using various plore the National Juvenile Court Data With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has
units of count (e.g., cases disposed, Archive Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ developed two Web-based data analy-
offenses referred, petitions), the read- ojstatbb/njcda/ for a summary of Ar- sis and dissemination applications
er is cautioned against making cross- chive holdings and procedures for that provide access to the data used
jurisdictional comparisons before data access. Researchers may also for this Report. The first of these
studying the table notes. contact the Archive directly at applications, Easy Access to Juvenile
412–227–6950. Court Statistics 1985–2002, was
This Report utilizes a format that developed to facilitate independent
combines tables, figures, and text Changes Introduced in This analysis of the national delinquency
highlights for presentation of the Report estimates presented in this Report
data. A detailed index of tables and while eliminating the need for statisti-
figures appears at the end of the A 2001 version of Juvenile Court cal analysis software. The second ap-
Report. Statistics was not produced separate- plication, Easy Access to State and
ly. This Report is a combined edition County Juvenile Court Case Counts, is a
Data Access for 2001 and 2002. The national esti- Web-based version of the information
mates and analyses focus on 2002, presented in appendixes C and D of
The data used in this Report are but the state- and county-level case- this Report. This application presents
stored in the National Juvenile Court load statistics in appendix C are pre- annual counts of the delinquency, sta-
Data Archive at NCJJ in Pittsburgh, sented separately for 2001 and 2002. tus, and dependency cases processed
PA. The Archive contains the most in juvenile courts, by state and coun-
detailed information available on This Report includes descriptions of ty. Both applications are available
juveniles involved in the juvenile jus- total petitioned status offense cases from OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book
tice system and on the activities of handled by courts with juvenile juris- at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
U.S. juvenile courts. Designed to facil- diction. In recent years, the descrip- index.html.
itate research on the juvenile justice tion of petitioned status offense cases

Chapter 2
National Estimates of
Delinquency Cases
Delinquency offenses are acts com- number of cases for every 1,000 juve-
mitted by juveniles that, if committed niles in the population—those age 10
by an adult, could result in criminal or older who were under the jurisdic-
prosecution. This chapter documents tion of a juvenile court.1
the volume of delinquency cases
referred to juvenile court and exam- The chapter focuses on cases dis-
ines the characteristics of these posed in 2002 and examines trends
cases, including types of offenses since 1985.
charged, demographic characteris-
tics of the juveniles involved (age,
gender, and race), and sources of
1 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction
referral.
is defined by statute in each state. See
appendix B, the “Glossary of Terms,” for a
Analysis of case rates permits com- more detailed discussion on upper age of ju-
parisons of juvenile court activity venile court jurisdiction. Case rates present-
over time while controlling for differed in this Report control for state variations
ences in the size and demographic in juvenile population.
characteristics of the juvenile popu-
lation. Rates are calculated as the

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Counts and Trends
■ In 2002, courts with juvenile jurisdic- Between 1960 and 2002, juvenile court delinquency caseloads
tion handled an estimated 1,615,400 increased nearly 300%; in the last 5 years, caseloads have declined 8%
delinquency cases.
Delinquency cases
■ In 1960, approximately 1,100 delin-
2,000,000
quency cases were processed daily.
In 2002, juvenile courts handled 1,800,000
about 4,400 delinquency cases per 1,600,000
day. Total delinquency
1,400,000
■ The number of delinquency cases 1,200,000
processed by juvenile courts 1,000,000
increased 41% between 1985 and
2002. 800,000
600,000
■ Between its peak year 1997 and
400,000
2002, the delinquency caseload
declined 11%. 200,000
0
■ The number of drug law violation 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02
cases increased 159% between 1985
and 2002, while both person and
public order offense cases increased
113%. In comparison, property
offense cases decreased 10% during
this period. Between 1985 and 2002, delinquency caseloads involving person,
■ Public order offense cases accounted drug, and public order offenses more than doubled; in contrast, the
for nearly half (46%) of the growth in property offense caseload decreased 10%
the delinquency caseload between Number of cases Number of cases
1985 and 2002. Person offense 400,000 1,000,000
cases made up another 44% of the 800,000
increased number of delinquency 300,000
Person Property
cases processed during this time 600,000
200,000
period. 400,000
100,000 200,000
Offense profile of delinquency
0 0
cases: 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Most serious
offense 1985 2002 Number of cases Number of cases
250,000 500,000
Person 16% 24%
Property 61 39 200,000 400,000
Drugs Public order
Drugs 7 12 150,000 300,000
Public order 17 25
100,000 200,000
Total 100% 100%
50,000 100,000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding. 0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Compared with 1985, a much smaller
proportion of the court’s delinquency
caseload in 2002 was property
offenses.

Counts and Trends
In recent years, the number of cases handled by juvenile courts has ■ Compared with 1993, juvenile courts
decreased for most offense categories handled 110% more drug law viola-
tion cases in 2002, 93% more
Percent change obstruction of justice cases, 92%
Most serious Number of cases more liquor law violation cases, 56%
1993– 1998– 2001–
more disorderly conduct cases, and
offense 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002
52% more simple assault cases.
Total delinquency 1,620,800 1,615,400 6% –8% 0%
Total person 388,000 387,500 19 –2 0 ■ Between 1998 and 2002, caseloads
Criminal homicide 1,500 1,700 –40 –19 11 dropped in several offense
Forcible rape 5,000 4,700 –29 –9 –7 categories, including stolen property
Robbery 22,000 21,500 –38 –28 –2 offenses (31%), robbery (28%), bur-
Aggravated assault 49,400 47,400 –34 –21 –4 glary (23%), aggravated assault
Simple assault 270,000 270,700 52 4 0 (21%), trespassing (20%), larceny-
Other violent sex offenses 13,800 16,400 39 30 19 theft (20%), motor vehicle theft
Other person offenses 26,200 25,200 22 –1 –4 (20%), and criminal homicide (19%).
Total property 628,100 624,900 –25 –20 –1
Burglary 101,000 100,000 –33 –23 –1 ■ Trends in juvenile court cases paral-
Larceny–theft 286,500 284,400 –24 –20 –1 leled trends in arrests of persons
Motor vehicle theft 37,500 38,500 –39 –20 3 younger than 18. The number of juve-
Arson 8,300 8,100 5 –4 –3 nile court cases involving offenses
Vandalism 94,900 94,800 –20 –16 0 included in the FBI's Violent Crime
Trespassing 50,600 50,800 –20 –20 0 Index2 (criminal homicide, forcible
Stolen property offenses 23,600 22,100 –29 –31 –6 rape, robbery, and aggravated
Other property offenses 25,900 26,200 –9 –14 1 assault) declined 23% between 1998
Drug law violations 201,500 193,200 110 1 –4 and 2002. The FBI reported that the
Public order offenses 403,200 409,800 52 7 2 number of arrests involving persons
Obstruction of justice 187,100 182,600 93 7 –2 younger than age 18 charged with
Disorderly conduct 97,600 108,500 56 25 11 Violent Crime Index offenses
Weapons offenses 36,500 35,900 –24 –17 –1 decreased 17% during this same
Liquor law violations 26,500 28,200 92 20 6 period.
Nonviolent sex offenses 15,300 15,500 45 25 1
Other public order offenses 40,200 39,000 19 –19 –3 ■ Between 1998 and 2002, the volume
Violent Crime Index* 78,000 75,300 –35 –23 –3 of juvenile court cases involving
Property Crime Index offenses (bur-
Property Crime Index** 433,200 431,000 –27 –21 –1
glary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. theft, and arson) declined 21%, and
** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. the FBI reported arrests of persons
under age 18 for Property Crime
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are Index offenses decreased 23%.
based on unrounded numbers.
2 The annual series of reports from the FBI,

Crime in the United States, provides informa-
tion on arrests in offense categories that have
become part of the common vocabulary of
criminal justice statistics. The Crime in the
United States series tracks changes in the
general nature of arrests through the use of
two indexes, the Violent Crime Index and the
Property Crime Index. Although they do not
contain all violent or all property offenses, the
indexes serve as a barometer of criminal ac-
tivity in the United States. The arrest trends
reported above are from Crime in the United
States 2002.

Case Rates
■ More than 31 million youth were Delinquency case rates rose from 43.6 to 62.2 per 1,000 juveniles
under juvenile court jurisdiction in between 1985 and 1996 and then steadily declined to 51.6 in 2002
2002. Of these youth, 8 in 10 (80%)
were between the ages of 10 and 15,
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
12% were age 16, and 8% were age
17. The small proportion of 16- and 70
17-year-olds among the juvenile court
60
population is related to the upper age
of juvenile court jurisdiction, which Total delinquency
50
varies by state. In 2002, youth age 16
in 3 states were under the original 40
jurisdiction of the criminal court, as
were youth age 17 in an additional 10 30
states.
20
■ In 2002, juvenile courts processed
51.6 delinquency cases for every 10
1,000 juveniles in the population—
those age 10 or older who were 0
under the jurisdiction of a juvenile 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
court.
■ The total delinquency case rate

1996 and then declined 17% to the Between 1991 and 2002, case rates for drug offenses increased 138%
2002 level.3 (from 2.6 to 6.2 per 1,000 juveniles)
■ Between 1985 and 2002, case rates
increased in three of the four general Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
offense categories: drug law viola- 14 35
tions by 117%, and person offenses 12 30
10 25
Property
and public order offenses each by Person
8 20
79%.
6 15
■ In contrast to other offense 4 10
2 5
categories, case rates for property
0 0
offenses declined 25% between 1985 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
and 2002.
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
7 14
6 12
3 The percent change in the number of cases
5 10
disposed may not be equal to the percent Drugs Public order
4 8
change in case rates because of the changing 3 6
size of the juvenile population. 2 4
1 2
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Age at Referral
In 2002, juveniles younger than age 16 accounted for more than half ■ In 2002, 58% of all delinquency
of all delinquency cases, including nearly two-thirds of person cases processed by the juvenile
offense cases courts involved youth age 15 or
younger at the time of referral.
Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16 ■ The proportion of cases involving
70% juveniles age 15 or younger varied by
Person
● Property ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
offense: younger juveniles accounted
60% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● for a smaller proportion of drug and
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ public order cases than of person
◆ ◆ ◆
50% ◆ ◆
◆ Public order and property offense cases.
40% ■ With the exception of 10- and 11-
Drugs year-olds, age-specific case rates in
30% 2002 were above the rates in 1985;
however, in the 5 years between
20% 1998 and 2002, age-specific case
rates dropped 12% on average.
10%
0% Offense profiles of delinquency

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 cases by age group:
Most serious Age 15 Age 16
offense or younger or older
2002
Between 1998 and 2002, delinquency case rates declined for all age Person 27% 20%
groups Property 40 36
Drugs 9 17
Public order 24 27
Case rate
Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Total 100% 100%
Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1985
Person 16% 15%
1985 5.9 9.9 18.2 33.2 50.3 66.2 79.4 80.7 Property 64 56
1986 5.7 9.3 17.8 33.8 52.9 70.0 85.5 86.0 Drugs 5 9
1987 5.7 9.8 18.3 34.4 54.7 71.4 85.0 86.3 Public order 15 20
1988 6.0 9.7 19.2 35.5 57.2 73.7 87.8 88.7
1989 6.0 10.7 20.2 38.7 58.9 77.9 92.1 88.9 Total 100% 100%
1990 6.2 11.0 21.7 41.1 65.2 83.5 100.5 97.2
rounding.
1991 6.5 11.7 23.2 45.2 68.6 90.9 104.7 104.1
1992 6.1 11.6 23.1 45.4 71.9 90.2 107.3 104.0 ■ Compared with the delinquency
1993 5.6 10.6 22.5 44.6 71.3 93.6 106.9 107.5
caseload involving older juveniles,
1994 6.0 11.3 23.7 48.3 75.2 98.8 117.0 111.7
the caseload of youth age 15 or
1995 6.0 11.7 24.9 48.4 78.0 100.7 120.6 117.5 younger in 2002 included larger pro-
1996 5.8 11.3 24.4 47.9 75.7 103.3 121.7 123.8 portions of person and property of-
1997 5.5 11.3 24.5 47.5 75.2 99.9 123.8 122.5 fense cases and smaller proportions
1998 5.4 10.7 23.1 44.6 71.1 95.4 115.4 121.6
of drug and public order offense
1999 5.1 10.3 22.3 42.7 66.1 90.5 110.2 111.9
cases.
2000 5.1 10.1 21.4 40.7 65.1 85.2 103.7 110.8
2001 5.0 9.8 21.2 40.7 63.4 85.5 103.8 109.0 ■ Compared with 1985, the caseloads
2002 4.6 9.3 20.4 39.2 63.2 84.3 102.9 109.1 in 2002 of both older and younger
Case rate = Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group. juveniles involved greater proportions
of person, public order, and drug
offense cases and smaller propor-
tions of property offense cases.

Age at Referral
■ Although comparable numbers of 17- In 2002, delinquency case rates increased with the referral age of
year-olds and 16-year-olds were the juvenile
arrested in 2002, the number of juve-
nile court cases involving 17-year-
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
olds (271,600) was lower than the
number involving 16-year-olds 120
109.1
(376,900). The explanation lies pri- 102.9
marily in the fact that, in 13 states, 100
17-year-olds are excluded from the 84.3
original jurisdiction of the juvenile 80
court. In these states, all 17-year- 63.2
olds are legally adults and are 60
referred to criminal court rather than
to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17- 39.2
40
year-olds than 16-year-olds are
subject to original juvenile court 20.4
jurisdiction. 20
9.3
4.6
■ In 2002, the case rate for 16-year- 0
olds was 1.6 times the rate for 14- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
year-olds, and the rate for 14-year- Age
olds was 3.1 times the rate for
12-year-olds.
■ The increase in case rates between

age 13 and age 17 was sharpest for
drug offenses. The case rate for drug
Case rates increased continuously with age for drug and public
offenses for 17-year-old juveniles order offense cases, while person and property offense cases
was 8 times the rate for 13-year-olds. leveled off after age 16
■ For cases involving person offenses, Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
the case rate for 17-year-olds (21.4) 40
● ●
was nearly double the rate for 13-
year-olds (11.6). 35
Property ●
■ For public order offenses in 2002, the 30 Public order ◆
◆
case rate for 17-year-olds was more 25 ●
than 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds ◆ Person
and the property offense case rate 20
for 17-year-olds was more than dou- ● ◆
ble the rate for 13-year-olds. 15
Drugs
10 ● ◆
5 ● ◆
● ◆
0◆
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age

Age at Referral
Trends in case rates were generally similar across age groups between 1985 and 2002 for each general
offense category
Person offense case rates Property offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25 60
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 17 ◆
20 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ● ● ●
● ● ◆
● ● ● ● 40 ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ●
15 ● ● Ages 13–15 ●
◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ●
● 30 ●
●
● ● ●
10 ● ●
● ● 20
5 Ages 10–12 Ages 10–12

10
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Across age groups, person offense case rates were ■ Property offense case rates peaked for all age groups
considerably higher in 2002 than in 1985. For exam- in 1991 and then generally declined through 2002. On
ple, in 2002, the case rate for juveniles ages 10–12 average, between 1991 and 2002, property offense
was 104% above the rate in 1985 and the rate for case rates fell across all age groups almost 40%.
juveniles ages 13–15 was 94% above the rate in
■ Property offense case rates were lower in 2002 than in
1985.
1985 for all age groups.
■ Person offense case rates were lower in 2002 than
in 1998 for all age groups.
Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates
25 30 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ 25 ◆
20 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
◆ Age 16
20 Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
15 ◆
◆ ● ●
Age 16 15 ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ● ●
10 ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 10 ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
5 ●
5
● ● ● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ In 2002, drug offense case rates were 136% higher ■ Public order offense case rates nearly doubled for
than the rates in 1985 for juveniles ages 10–12, 124% each age group between 1985 and 1998 and, with the
higher for juveniles ages 13–15, 132% higher for 16- exception of juveniles ages 10-12, have remained rela-
year-olds, and 135% higher for youth age 17. tively constant at that level through 2002.
■ Drug offense case rates more than doubled for each ■ Between 1998 and 2002, public order offense case
age group between 1991 and 1997 and have remained rates increased nearly 20% for juveniles ages 10–12.
near the 1997 level through 2002 for each age group.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses and public order offenses, their case rates are
inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trend over time.

Gender
■ Overall, the female delinquency Between 1985 and 2002, the number of delinquency cases involving
caseload grew at an average rate of females increased 92% (from 220,600 to 423,100 cases); for males
4% per year between 1985 and the increase was 29% (from 925,200 to 1,192,300 cases)
2002, while the average rate
increase was 2% per year for males.
Number of cases
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the relative 1,400,000
increase in the female caseload out- Delinquency
paced that of the male caseload for 1,200,000
person offenses (202% vs. 91%), Male
1,000,000
public order offenses (171% vs.
97%), and drug offenses (171% vs.
800,000
156%).
600,000
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the male
property caseload decreased 19%,
400,000
while the number of property offense Female
cases involving females increased 200,000
27%.
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Number of cases
700,000 ● ● ● ● ●
Male ● ●
●
600,000 ● ● ● ● ●
● Property
●
500,000 ●
● ●
400,000
300,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Person ◆
◆ ◆
◆
200,000 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Public order
100,000
Drugs
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Number of cases
250,000
Female
200,000 ● ● ●
Property ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
● ●
150,000 ●
● ● ● ●
●
◆ ◆
100,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Person ◆
◆ Public order
◆
◆
50,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Drugs
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Gender
The proportion of the delinquency caseload involving females ■ Females accounted for 20% of per-
increased from 19% in 1985 to 26% in 2002 son offense cases for each year
between 1985 and 1991. Between
1991 and 2002, the female proportion
Percent of cases involving females of the person offense caseload has
30% steadily increased to 28%.
25%
Offense profiles of delinquency
cases for males and females:
20% Most serious
Delinquency offense Male Female
15% 2002
Person 23% 26%
10% Property 39 39
Drugs 13 8
Public order 25 27
5%
Total 100% 100%
0% 1985
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Person 16% 16%
Property 61 59
Drugs 7 6
Public order 16 19
Percent of cases involving females

Total 100% 100%
Percent of cases involving females
30% 30% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
25% 25% rounding.
Person Property
20% 20%
■ Both male and female delinquency
15% 15% caseloads in 2002 had greater pro-
10% 10% portions of person, drug, and public
5% 5% order offense cases than in 1985 and
0% 0% smaller proportions of property
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 offense cases.
Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females

■ In 2002, the female caseload con-
30% 30% tained a greater proportion of person
25% 25%
and public order offenses and a
Public order smaller proportion of drug offenses
20% 20%
than the male caseload.
15% 15%
Drugs
10% 10% ■ The female and male caseload con-
5% 5% tained an equal proportion of proper-
0% 0% ty offenses in 2002. For both males
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 and females, the property offense
proportions of the delinquency case-
loads were substantially less in 2002
than in 1985.

Gender
■ Overall, trends in delinquency case Although delinquency case rates are much higher for males than
rates revealed similar patterns for females, female rates increased more or decreased less than the
males and females. For both groups, male rates between 1985 and 2002
the case rate increased from 1985
into the mid-1990s. For males, the Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
rate increased 36% to its peak in
1996 then fell 21% by 2002. The 100
Delinquency
female rate grew 72% between 1985 90
and 1997 then dropped just 6% 80
through 2002. Male
70
■ Male and female delinquency case 60
rates converged between 1985 and
50
2002. In 1985, the delinquency case
rate for males was almost 4 times 40
greater than the rate for females; by 30
2002, the male rate was less than 3
20
times the female rate—74.3 Female
compared with 27.7. 10
0
■ For all years, the largest gender dis- 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
parity in offense-specific case rates
was for drug offenses. In 2002, the
drug offense case rate for males was Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
more than 4 times greater than the 60
rate for females. Male
● ●
50
■ Between 1998 and 2002, male case ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
rates declined for each of the four ●
Property ●
40 ●
general offense categories.
●
●
■ In contrast to male case rates, 30 ● ●
between 1998 and 2002, female case
rates increased for drug and public 20 Person ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
order offenses, remained relatively ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
unchanged for person offenses, and 10 ◆ Public order
declined less than male rates for Drugs
property offenses.
0
■ In 2002, female person offense case 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
rates were at their highest level since
1998, while male rates fell 8% Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
between 1998 and 2002.
16
Female
■ As female property offense case 14 ● ● ●
●
rates decreased 16% between 1998 ● ● ● ●
and 2002, rates for males decreased 12 ● ●
● ●
Property ● ● ●
26%. ● ●
10 ●
■ Female drug offense case rates

8 ◆
increased 12% between 1998 and ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
2002, while male rates decreased 6 Person ◆
7%. ◆ ◆
Public order
4 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
■ Between 1998 and 2002, public order
offense case rates for females 2
Drugs
increased 14% and male rates 0
decreased 2%. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Gender
In 2002, the delinquency case rate for females peaked at age 16 while ■ Delinquency case rates generally
the male case rate increased through age 17 increased with age, but the increase
was more pronounced for females
than for males. In 2002, the average
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
female case rate increase from one
180 age group to the next was 77%, com-
163.8
160 150.3 pared with a 59% average increase
for males.
140
118.9 ■ The difference between male and
120
female delinquency case rates was
100 86.8 greatest for the youngest and oldest
80 age groups. In 2002, for youth ages
13 and 14, the male delinquency
60 53.7 53.0 51.2 case rate was about twice the female
48.1
38.5 rate; for 10-year-olds, the male rate
40 29.4
23.9 was nearly 5 times the female rate,
20 14.2 11.0
7.5 4.1 and for 17-year-olds, the male rate
1.6
0 was more than 3 times the female
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 rate.
Age
■ In 2002, male case rates increased
Male
continuously through age 17 in all
Female
four delinquency offense categories.
■ For females, only the drug offense

case rate increased through age 17
35 60 in 2002; female case rates for per-
Person Property son, property, and public order
30 50
25 offenses increased continuously
40
20 through age 16 and then slightly
30
15 declined.
20
10
5 10 ■ Drug case rates in 2002 were highest
0 0 for 17-year-olds of both sexes. The
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 drug offense case rate for 17-year-
Age Age
old males was nearly 28 times the
rate for 12-year-old males; among
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group females, the drug offense case rate
35 50 for 17-year-olds was more than 12
Drugs Public order times the rate for 12-year-olds.
30
40
25
20 30 .
15 20
10
10
5
0 0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age Age

Gender
Across all age groups and offense categories, case rates for males exceed rates for females; however,
since 1998, female rates for drug and public order offense cases increased while male rates leveled off
40 100
Male Male
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
35 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ 80 ◆ ◆
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16
● ● ◆
25 ● ●
● 60 ● ● ◆
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
20 ◆ ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
Ages 13–15 Ages 13–15
● 40 ●
15 ● ●
● ● ● ●
●
10
Ages 10–12 20 Ages 10–12
5
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
14 30
Female Age 17 Female Age 16
12 ◆ 25 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
10 ● ●
● ● ● ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
◆
● ● ● ◆ ◆ ◆
20 ◆ ●
◆
● Ages 13–15 ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ●
8 ◆
● ● Ages 13–15 ●
◆
◆
● 15 ◆ ●
●
● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ●
6 ● ●
◆
●
◆ ◆ ◆
● 10
4◆
● ● ●
Ages 10–12 (x2)*
2 5 Ages 10–12
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Between 1985 and 2002, male person offense case ■ Property offense case rates increased for males
rates increased for all age groups: 92% for youth ages across all age groups between 1985 and 1991 and
10–12, 73% for ages 13–15, 54% for age 16, and 52% then decreased through 2002 to their lowest level
for age 17. since 1985.
■ The age-specific trends between 1985 and 2002 in ■ In contrast to males, age-specific property offense
person offense case rates for females showed much case rates for females were higher in 2002 than in
greater increases than those for males. Case rates 1985 for all age groups except ages 10–12, whose rate
increased 157% for females ages 10–12, 167% for decreased 13%.
those ages 13–15, 165% for age 16, and 174% for
■ For females ages 16 and 17, property offense case
age 17.
rates peaked in 1997; for age groups 10–12 and
13–15, the peak year was 1995. Following their peaks,
female property case rates for all age groups dropped
steadily through 2002.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving female youth ages 10–12 for person offenses, their case rates are inflated by a fac-
tor of 2 to display the trend over time.

Gender
35 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 50
◆ ◆ ◆ Male
Male ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
30 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 40 ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆
25 ◆
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
20 ◆ ◆
◆
◆ ◆
15 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
20
Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Ages 13–15 ● ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
10 ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
●
●
10
5 ● ● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)* Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
7 16
Female ◆ ◆
Female
◆ 14
6 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆
12 ◆ ◆ Age 17
5 ◆ ◆ ●
◆ 10 ◆ ●
●
4 ◆ ● ● ●
Age 16 8 ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ●
3 ◆ ◆ ◆ ● Ages 13–15
◆ ● ● 6◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ● ● ●
●
◆ ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 ◆ ◆ 4●
● Ages 13–15 Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ● ● ●
1 ● ● 2
● ●
Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ For males, drug offense case rates increased more ■ Between 1985 and 2002, public order offense case
than 120% for each age group between 1985 and rates for male youth ages 10–12 increased 92%. Rates
2002. Between 1991 and 2002, drug offense case increased 76% for males ages 13–15, 67% for 16-
rates for male youth ages 10–12 increased 189%, year-olds, and 65% for 17-year-olds.
while the rate increases for each of the other age
■ With the exception of the 10–12 age group, age-specif-
groups averaged 120%.
ic public order offense case rates for males have
■ Between 1985 and 2002, female drug offense case remained relatively stable since 1996. However, for
rates increased more than 130% for each age group; males ages 10–12, public order offense case rates
between 1991 and 2002, the increase was more than increased 24% between 1996 and 2002.
250% for each age group.
■ Between 1991 and 2002, female public order offense
■ Between 1998 and 2002, drug offense case rates for case rates for youth ages 10–12 increased 121%.
female youth ages 10–12 increased 31%. Rates Rates increased 113% for females ages 13–15, 127%
increased 18% for females ages 13–15, 13% for 16- for 16-year-olds, and 129% for 17-year-olds.
year-olds, and 6% for 17-year-olds.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving male and female youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses and public order offenses,
their case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.

Race
Percent change in number of Between 1998 and 2002, the delinquency caseload decreased 9% for
cases by race, 1985–2002: white juveniles, 7% for black juveniles, and 3% for youth of other
Most serious Other
races
offense White4 Black races
Delinquency 31% 65% 89% Number of cases
Person 120 99 173 1,400,000
Property –18 7 35
Drugs 149 196 183 1,200,000
Public order 90 192 183 White
1,000,000
■ Although trends in the volume of
cases differed somewhat across 800,000
racial groups, the number of person,
drug, and public order offense cases 600,000
increased substantially between 1985 Black
and 2002 for all three racial groups. 400,000
200,000
Other races
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Offense profile of delinquency 0
cases by race: 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Most serious Other
offense White Black races
2002
Number of cases Number of cases
Person 22% 30% 22%
700,000 250,000
Property 39 36 45 White ● ● ● ●
● ● Black ● ● ● ● ●
600,000 ● ● ●
●
Drugs 13 9 10 ● ● 200,000 ●
Property
● ● ● ● ● ●
500,000 ● ● ● ● ●
Public order 26 25 23 Property ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
400,000 150,000
Total 100% 100% 100% Public order Person ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
300,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 100,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
1985 200,000 ◆ Person ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 50,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 13% 25% 15% 100,000
Drugs Drugs
Property 62 56 63 0 0
Drugs 7 5 7 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Public order 18 14 16
Total 100% 100% 100%
Number of cases
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 40,000
rounding. Other races ● ●
● ● ●
●
30,000 ● ●
●
● Property ●
■ In 2002, the offense profile differed ● ●
●
● ●
substantially from that of 1985 for all 20,000 ●

●
Person Public order

racial groups. Although a property ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
10,000 ◆
offense was the most common ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
charge involved in delinquency cases 0 Drugs
disposed for both years, the propor- 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
tions of the caseloads that involved
person or public order offenses were
much larger in 2002 than in 1985 for
all racial groups.
4 Throughout this Report, juveniles of Hispanic

ethnicity can be of any race; however, most
are included in the white racial category.

Race
In 2002, more than two-thirds of all delinquency cases involved white ■ In 2002, white youth made up 78%
youth: 60% of person offense cases, 68% of property offense cases, of the U.S. population under juvenile
76% of drug offense cases, and 68% of public order offense cases court jurisdiction, black youth 16%,
and youth of other races 6%.
Proportion of delinquency cases Racial profile of delinquency

100% cases by offense:
90% Most serious Other
80% offense White Black races Total
2002
70%
Delinquency 67% 29% 3% 100%
60% Person 60 37 3 100
50% Property 68 28 4 100
Drugs 76 21 3 100
40% Public order 68 29 3 100
30% 1985
20% Delinquency 72% 25% 3% 100%
Person 58 39 2 100
10% Property 74 23 3 100
0% Drugs 79 19 2 100
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Public order 77 21 2 100
White Black Other races rounding.
■ Although white youth represented the

Person offense cases Property offense cases largest share of the delinquency
caseload, their relative contribution
Proportion of cases Proportion of cases declined between 1985 and 2002,
100% 100% from 72% to 67%.
80% 80%
■ The proportion of delinquency cases
60% 60%
involving black youth increased
40% 40% between 1985 and 2002 from 25% to
20% 20% 29%
0% 0% ■ Youth of other races made up less
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
than 5% of delinquency cases
processed for each year from 1985
through 2002.
Drug offense cases Public order offense cases
Proportion of cases Proportion of cases ■ The proportion of the drug offense
100% 100% caseload involving white youth
80% 80%
decreased from 79% to 48%
between 1985 and 1991 and then
60% 60% steadily increased to 76% in 2002.
40% 40% The proportion of drug offense cases
20% 20%
involving black youth increased from
19% to 50% between 1985 and 1991
0% 0% and then steadily decreased to 21%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
by 2002.

Race
■ In 2002, the total delinquency case Between 1997 and 2002, delinquency case rates declined for youth
rate for black juveniles (94.0) was of all racial groups: 15% for white juveniles, 22% for black juveniles,
more than double the rate for white and 12% for youth of other races
juveniles (44.4) and more than 3
times the rate for youth of other
races (30.9). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
140
■ For white juveniles, the delinquency
case rate peaked in 1997 (52.4) then 120
fell 15% by 2002; the rate for black Black
juveniles in 2002 was down 24% 100
from its 1995 peak (123.5). The
80
delinquency case rate for youth of
other races peaked in 1994 (42.9)
60
then declined 28% by 2002. White
● ● ● ●
40 ● ● ● ●
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the person ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● Other races ●
offense case rate increased more for
20
white youth (93%) than for black
youth (53%) or youth of other races 0
(47%). 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ In 2002, the person offense case rate
for black juveniles (28.2) was nearly
3 times the rate for white juveniles
(9.5) and more than 4 times the rate Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
for youth of other races (6.7). 35 60
30
Person Property
Black 50
■ Property offense case rates have 25 Black
40
declined since the early 1990s for all 20 White
30
racial groups. Between 1991 and 15 ● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
White 20 ● ● ● ●
●
2002, the rate for both white and 10 Other races ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● 10
black juveniles fell 39%, and the rate 5 ●● ● ● Other races
for youth of other races fell 42%. As 0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
a result, the property offense case
rates in 2002 were lower than in
1985 for each racial group.
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
■ The drug offense case rate for black 14 30
12
Drugs Public order
juveniles increased dramatically from 25
1985 to 1988, leveled off, then 10 20
Black Black
increased to reach a peak in 1996 8
15
6 White
(13.1) that was 263% above the rate White 10
4 ●
in 1985 (3.6). Between 1996 and ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 ● ● ● ● ● ● Other races
2002, the drug offense case rate for ● ● ● ● Other races
0 0
black juveniles declined 37% (8.2) 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
while the rate increased 14% for
white juveniles and 9% for youth of
other races.
■ Between 1985 and 2002, public

order offense case rates increased
125% for black juveniles (10.4 vs.
23.4), 66% for white juveniles (6.9 vs.
11.4), and 52% for juveniles of other
races (4.8 vs. 7.2).

Race
Case rates for juveniles generally increased with age regardless of ■ In 2002, delinquency case rates
race and offense category increased sharply from age 10 to
age 13 for all racial groups; the delin-
quency case rate for 13-year-olds
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group was more than 8 times the rate for
200 10-year-olds for each racial group.
175 ■ For each age group in 2002, the

delinquency case rate for black juve-
150 niles was more than twice the rate
125 for white juveniles and more than 3
times the rate for youth of other
100 races.
75 ■ Age-specific person offense rates for
black juveniles in 2002 averaged
50
more than 3 times the rates for white
25 juveniles and nearly 5 times the
rates for youth of other races.
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ■ In 2002, the person offense case
Age rate for 16-year-olds within each
racial group was more than twice the
White Black Other races rate for 13-year-olds.
■ Age-specific case rates for property

offenses in 2002 were higher than
the rates for other offense categories
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group for all racial groups.
50 70
Person Property ■ In 2002, property offense case rates
60
40
50 for black juveniles were more than
30 40 twice the rates for white juveniles or
20 30 youth of other races for each age
20 group.
10 10
0 0 ■ Age-specific drug offense case rates
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 in 2002 were comparable for white
Age Age juveniles and black juveniles through
age 13. After age 13, the racial dis-
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group parity in drug offense case rates
40 50 increased so that by age 17 the
Drugs Public order
30 40 black drug offense case rate was
30
nearly 2 times the white rate and
20 more than 4 times the rate of other
20 races.
10
10
■ In 2002, the drug offense case rate
0 0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
among 16-year-olds was 10 times
Age Age the rate among 13-year-olds for
black youth, compared with 6 times
for white youth and 4 times for youth
of other races.
■ Within each age group in 2002, the

public order offense case rate for
black juveniles was more than twice
the rate for white youth and nearly 4
times the rate for youth of other races.

Race
With the exception of property offenses, case rates in 2002 were higher than those in 1985 for all age
groups within each racial category
20 ◆ 60
White ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆ White
18 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
16 ◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
14 40 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ●
◆ ● Ages 13–15 ● ●
● ●
10 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
● 30 ●
● ● ●
●
● Ages 13–15 ●
8 ● ●
● ●
6● ● ● ● 20
4 Ages 10–12 10 Ages 10–12
2
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
70 120
Black Age 16 Black
◆
◆ ◆
60 ◆ ◆ 100 Age 16
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 80 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆
● ● ◆ ● ◆
● ● ● ◆ ● ● ● ● ◆
40 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ● ●
● ● ● ◆ ◆
◆ ● ● ● ●
● Ages 13–15 60 ● ● ●
30 ● ● Ages 13–15 ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ● 40
●
20
Ages 10–12 Ages 10–12
10 20
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
16 50
◆ ◆ Other races
Other races ◆
14 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 16
Age 17 40 ◆ ◆
12 ◆ Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ● ◆
10 ◆ ◆ ● ◆ ◆ ● ● ● ◆
● ● ● 30 ◆ ● ● ● ◆
◆ ◆ ● ◆ ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● Ages 13–15 ● ◆ ◆
8 ● ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● Ages 13–15 ●
6 20 ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
4 Ages 10–12
Ages 10–12 10
2
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ For all years between 1985 and 2002, person offense ■ Between 1998 and 2002, age-specific property offense
case rates for blacks were well above those for other case rates decreased for all racial groups to a level
racial groups. In 2002, age-specific person offense case lower than that of 1985.
rates for black youth were 3 to 4 times higher than the
corresponding rates for white youth and 4 to 6 times
higher than those for youth of other races.
.

Race
20 ◆ ◆ 30
White ◆
◆ ◆ White Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ 25 ◆
16 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ Age 16
20 ◆
◆
12 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16 ◆
15 ◆
● ● ● ● ● ●
8◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ●
◆ Ages 13–15 ● ●
◆ ● 10 ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
4 ● 5
● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
50 60 ◆
◆
Black Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Black ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
40 Age 17 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ 40
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
◆
Ages 13–15
◆ Age 16 ◆ ●
30 ◆ ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ●
20 ◆ ◆ ● ●
20 ●
◆ ●
Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
10 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 10
●
● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
10 20
Other races ◆ ◆
Other races Age 17
8 ◆ 16
◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16
6 ◆ 12 ◆
◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15
◆ ● ● ● ●
4 8 ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ●
● ◆
2 ● Ages 10–12 (x5)* 4
● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Drug offense case rates for black youth generally ■ Across age groups, public order offense case rates for
increased for all age groups through the mid 1990s then black youth more than doubled between 1985 and
declined steadily through 2002. For white youth and 2002. During the same time period, the rate for white
youth of other races, rates declined for all age groups youth increased more than 65% for each age group.
through the early 1990s then increased to their current
levels.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth of all races ages 10–12 for drug offenses and public order offenses, their
case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.

Source of Referral
■ Delinquency cases can be referred to Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of delinquency
court intake by a number of sources, referrals to juvenile court
including law enforcement agencies,
social service agencies, schools, par- Percent of cases referred by law enforcement
ents, probation officers, and victims. 100%
Drugs
90% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
■ Law enforcement agencies were the
primary source of delinquency refer- 80% Property
Person
rals for each year between 1985 and ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
70% ◆
◆ ◆
2002. ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Public order ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
60% ◆ ◆
■ In 2002, 82% of all delinquency 50%

cases were referred by law enforce-
ment; however, there were variations 40%
across offense categories. 30%
20%
■ Law enforcement agencies referred
91% of property cases, 90% of drug 10%
law violation cases, 87% of person 0%
offense cases, and 61% of public 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
order offense cases in 2002.
■ For each year between 1985 and

2002, public order offense cases had
the smallest proportion of cases Data Table
referred to court by law enforcement. Public
This may be attributed in part to the Total Person Property Drugs order
fact that this offense category con-
1985 83% 79% 88% 91% 64%
tains probation violations and con- 1986 84 80 89 91 66
tempt-of-court cases, which are most 1987 84 82 89 92 64
often referred by court personnel. 1988 84 82 89 92 63
1989 84 83 89 92 63
■ Compared with 1985, law enforce-
ment referred a larger proportion of 1990 86 86 91 92 70
person and property offense cases in 1991 84 81 88 88 70
2002 and a smaller proportion of 1992 86 85 90 93 72
public order offense cases. 1993 87 88 91 94 71
1994 87 87 91 94 70
1995 86 87 91 93 69
1996 86 87 91 93 67
1997 85 87 91 92 65
1998 84 87 91 92 62
1999 84 87 91 90 63
2000 83 88 91 89 62
2001 83 88 91 90 61
2002 82 87 91 90 61

Chapter 3
National Estimates of
Delinquency Case Processing
This chapter quantifies the flow of cases, thus authorizing a transfer to
delinquency cases through each of criminal court. This Report describes
the following stages of the juvenile those cases that were transferred to
court system. criminal court by judicial waiver only.
Detention: Juvenile courts some- Adjudication: At an adjudicatory

times hold youth in secure detention hearing, a youth may be adjudicated
facilities during court processing to (judged) a delinquent if the juvenile
protect the community, to ensure a court determines that the youth did
juvenile’s appearance at subsequent commit the offense(s) charged in the
court hearings, to secure the juve- petition. If the youth is adjudicated,
nile’s own safety, or for the purpose the case proceeds to a disposition
of evaluating the juvenile. This hearing. Alternatively, a case can be
Report describes the use of deten- dismissed or continued in contempla-
tion between court referral and case tion of dismissal. In these cases
disposition only, although juveniles where the youth is not adjudicated
can be detained by police prior to delinquent, the court can recommend
referral and also by the courts after that the youth take some actions
disposition while awaiting placement prior to the final adjudication deci-
elsewhere. sion, such as paying restitution or
voluntarily attending drug counseling.
Intake: Formal processing of a case
involves the filing of a petition that Disposition: Disposition options
requests an adjudicatory or waiver include commitment to an institution
hearing. Informally processed cases, or other residential facility, probation
on the other hand, are handled with- supervision, or a variety of other
out a petition and without an adjudi- sanctions, such as community serv-
catory or waiver hearing. ice, restitution or fines, or referral to
an outside agency or treatment pro-
Waiver: One of the first decisions gram. This Report characterizes case
made at intake is whether a case disposition by the most severe or
should be processed in the criminal restrictive sanction. For example,
(adult) justice system rather than in although most youth in out-of-home
the juvenile court. Most states have placements are also technically on
more than one mechanism for trans- probation, in this Report cases result-
ferring cases to criminal court: prose- ing in placement are not included in
cutors may have the authority to file the probation group.
certain juvenile cases directly in
criminal court; state statute may This chapter describes case process-
order cases meeting certain age and ing by offense and by demographics
offense criteria be excluded from (age, gender, and race) of the juve-
juvenile court jurisdiction and filed niles involved, focusing on cases dis-
directly in criminal court; and a juve- posed in 2002 and examining trends
nile court judge may waive juvenile from 1985 through 2002.
court jurisdiction in certain juvenile

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Detention
■ The number of delinquency cases The number of cases involving detention increased substantially
involving detention increased 42% between 1985 and 2002 for person, drug, and public order offenses
between 1985 and 2002, from but decreased for property offense cases
231,400 to 329,800. The largest rela-
tive increase was for drug offense Cases detained
cases (140%), followed by person
160,000
cases (122%) and public order cases
● ● ●
(72%). In contrast, the number of 140,000
●
detained property offense cases Property ●
●
● ● ● ● ●
declined 12% during this period. 120,000 ● ● ● ●
● ●
■ Despite the growth in the volume of 100,000 ◆ ●
Person ◆ ◆
delinquency cases involving deten- ◆ ◆ ◆
80,000
tion, the proportion of cases detained ◆ Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
was the same in 2002 as in 1985 60,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
(20%).
40,000
■ Although property offense cases Drugs
20,000
were the least likely to involve deten-
tion, they still accounted for the 0
largest volume of cases involving 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
detention.
■ For person and property offense

cases, the proportion of cases involv-
ing detention changed very little
between 1985 and 2002.
■ The use of detention for public order The proportion of drug offense cases involving detention reached a
offense cases decreased between peak of 37% in 1990 and declined to 20% in 2002
1985 and 2002.
Percent of cases detained
Offense profile of detained 40%
delinquency cases: Drugs
35%
Most serious
30% Public order
offense 1985 2002 ◆
◆ ◆ Person
25% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 19% 29% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Property 52 32 20% ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Drugs 7 11 ● ● ● ● ● ●
15% ●
Public order 22 27 Property ● ●
Total 100% 100% 10% Total delinquency
Number of
5%
cases 231,400 329,800
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 0%
rounding. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Compared with 1985, the offense

characteristics of the 2002 detention
caseload changed, involving greater
proportions of person, drug, and pub-
lic order offense cases and a smaller
proportion of property offense cases.

Detention
While black youth represented 29% of the overall delinquency ■ Between 1985 and 2002, the propor-
caseload in 2002, they made up 36% of the detention caseload tion of all delinquency cases that
involved black youth averaged 29%,
Percent of cases involving black juveniles while that average was 37% of all
40% detained cases.
35% Detained delinquency cases ■ Historically, overrepresentation of

black youth was greatest for drug
30% offense cases. On average, between
All delinquency cases 1985 and 2002, black youth account-
25%
ed for 33% of all cases involving drug
20% offense violations but represented
50% of such cases detained.
15%
■ Between 1985 and 1991, the propor-
10% tion of detained drug offense cases
5% involving black youth increased sub-
stantially (from 30% to 65%). Since
0% that time, the proportion of detained
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 drug offense cases involving black
youth has steadily decreased but
remains above the 1985 level.

Percent of cases involving black juveniles Percent of cases involving black juveniles
50% 50%
tion of detained drug offense cases
Detained cases involving black youth was more than
40% 40%
All cases
Detained cases 60%.
30% 30%
All cases ■ In 2002, black youth accounted for
20% 20%
Person Property 21% of all drug offense cases
10% 10% processed but were involved in 36%
0% 0% of the drug offenses that involved
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 detention.
■ Black youth accounted for 37% of the

Percent of cases involving black juveniles Percent of cases involving black juveniles person offense cases processed in
80% 50% 2002 and 41% of those detained.
Drugs
Detained cases 40%
60% Detained cases ■ The proportion of property offense
30% cases involving black youth in 2002
40% All cases
20% was 28%, while the proportion of
20%
All cases Public order detained property offense cases
10%
involving black youth was 36%.
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 ■ Black juveniles made up 29% of pub-
lic order offense cases processed in
2002 and 31% of those detained.
■ Youth of other races made up 5% or

less of the overall 2002 caseload for
each offense category as well as the
corresponding caseloads involving
detention.

Detention
Age For all years between 1985 and 2002, detention was more likely for
cases involving older youth than younger youth, males than females,
■ In each year from 1985 through and black youth than white youth
2002, delinquency cases involving
youth age 16 or older were more like- Percentage of delinquency cases detained by age group:
ly to be detained than were cases 15 or younger 16 or older
involving youth age 15 or younger.
Public Public
■ For both age groups, drug offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases were more likely to involve 1985 19% 22% 16% 20% 28% 22% 27% 20% 22% 26%
detention than were other offense 1986 19 23 16 24 27 22 26 19 26 24
cases between 1987 and the mid 1987 18 21 14 30 26 21 25 18 29 23
1990s. After that time, however, per- 1988 19 22 15 34 26 22 25 18 31 23
son offense and public order offense 1989 20 23 16 36 26 23 27 19 35 25
cases were more likely to involve
1990 21 25 18 39 29 24 29 21 36 26
detention than were drug offense
1991 19 23 16 38 25 22 27 18 34 23
cases. 1992 19 22 16 35 24 22 27 18 32 22
1993 18 21 14 28 22 21 26 17 27 22
■ In 2002, 16-year-olds accounted for
1994 17 21 14 25 21 20 26 17 24 21
25% of the cases that involved deten-
tion cases, a larger proportion of 1995 16 20 12 21 18 18 24 15 21 19
cases than any other single age 1996 16 21 12 20 19 18 25 15 20 19
group. 1997 17 22 13 19 21 21 27 16 21 23
1998 18 23 14 22 21 22 28 18 24 23
1999 20 23 16 23 24 24 29 19 25 25
2000 19 23 15 19 22 22 28 18 22 24
Gender 2001 19 24 15 18 20 21 27 17 21 22
2002 20 24 16 18 21 22 27 18 21 22
■ Male juveniles charged with
delinquency offenses were more like-
ly than females to be held in secure Percentage of delinquency cases detained by gender:
facilities while awaiting court disposi- Male Female
tion. Overall in 2002, 22% of male
Public Public
delinquency cases involved deten-
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
tion, compared with 17% of female
cases. 1985 21% 26% 18% 22% 26% 17% 17% 13% 19% 28%
1986 21 26 18 26 25 17 18 13 21 27
■ In 2002, both males and females 1987 20 24 17 30 24 15 16 11 23 25
were least likely to be detained in 1988 21 24 17 33 25 16 18 12 26 25
cases involving property offenses 1989 22 26 18 37 26 16 18 12 27 24
(19% and 12%, respectively). 1990 24 28 20 39 28 17 19 13 28 26
1991 22 26 18 36 24 15 18 12 26 21
1992 21 26 18 34 23 15 17 12 26 22
1993 20 25 17 28 23 14 16 11 21 18
1994 20 24 17 25 22 14 17 10 19 17
1995 18 23 15 22 20 12 16 8 15 15
1996 18 24 15 21 20 12 18 8 13 17
1997 20 26 16 21 23 14 19 9 16 19
1998 21 26 17 24 23 16 20 11 19 20
1999 23 26 19 25 26 18 22 12 21 22
2000 22 27 18 21 24 17 21 11 18 20
2001 21 26 17 20 22 16 21 11 17 18
2002 22 26 19 20 23 17 22 12 18 18

Detention
Percentage of delinquency cases detained by race: Race

White Black
■ Cases involving black youth were
Public Public
more likely to be detained than cases
involving white youth in each year
1985 18% 21% 16% 18% 25% 25% 28% 22% 33% 31% between 1985 and 2002 across
1986 18 21 15 20 24 26 28 23 42 32 offense categories.
1987 17 19 14 20 23 26 27 21 47 30
1988 17 19 14 20 22 27 28 22 50 30 ■ In 2002, person offense cases
1989 18 21 15 22 24 28 28 22 53 30 involving black youth and youth of
1990 20 23 17 26 26 29 30 24 50 31 other races were more likely to
1991 17 21 15 24 22 26 28 22 46 27 involve detention than those involving
1992 18 22 15 24 22 25 27 21 43 24 white youth (28%, 27%, and 23%,
1993 16 20 14 19 20 23 26 19 39 23 respectively).
1994 17 21 14 17 20 22 25 18 36 21
■ The likelihood of detention for proper-
1995 14 19 12 14 18 21 24 17 35 20
ty offenses in 2002 was higher for
1996 14 21 11 13 17 22 25 18 34 22
black youth than for white youth and
1997 16 22 13 14 21 24 27 19 35 23
youth of other races (22%, 15%, and
1998 18 23 14 18 22 25 27 21 36 23
1999 19 23 15 18 23 27 28 21 41 28 17%, respectively).
2000 18 23 14 17 21 25 28 20 33 26 ■ In 2002, black youth were twice as

2001 17 23 14 16 20 25 28 21 34 24 likely as white youth and youth of
2002 18 23 15 16 21 25 28 22 33 23 other races to be detained for cases
involving drug offenses (33%, 16%,
Other race and 17%, respectively).
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order ■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli-
hood of detention for cases involving
1985 25% 31% 20% 26% 37% public order offenses decreased for
1986 25 34 21 20 32 youth of all races: from 25% to 21%
1987 24 31 21 28 29 for white youth, from 31% to 23% for
1988 26 31 24 32 29 black youth, and from 37% to 24%
1989 27 30 25 34 31 for youth of other races.
1990 30 38 26 37 33
1991 25 30 22 32 27 ■ Overall, between 1985 and 2002, the
1992 22 28 20 22 22 detention caseload increased from
1993 22 29 18 22 25 151,600 to 199,700 for white youth
1994 21 29 17 23 26 (32%), from 72,500 to 118,600 for
black youth (64%), and from 7,300 to
1995 20 27 16 15 27 11,500 for youth of other races
1996 19 28 14 18 26
(57%).
1997 21 31 15 17 28
1998 21 29 16 20 28 ■ Among white youth and youth of
1999 23 32 18 23 29
other races, the largest increase
2000 23 31 17 21 28 between 1985 and 2002 in the num-
2001 20 26 16 16 24 ber of cases involving detention was
2002 21 27 17 17 24 seen in juveniles charged with per-
son offense violations (144% and
141%, respectively); among black
youth, the largest increase in the
number of cases detained involved
drug offense violations (194%).

Intake Decision
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli- Between 1985 and 1992, delinquency cases were more likely to be
hood that a delinquency case would handled without the filing of a petition; beginning in 1993, the
be handled informally (without filing a reverse was true
petition for adjudication) decreased.
While the overall delinquency case- Delinquency cases
load increased 41% between 1985 1,200,000
and 2002, the number of nonpeti-
tioned cases increased 9% and the
number of petitioned cases increased 1,000,000
80%. Petitioned
800,000
■ Between 1992 and 2002, the number Nonpetitioned
of cases handled with the filing of a 600,000
petition requesting an adjudicatory
hearing increased 27%, while the
400,000
number of nonpetitioned cases
declined 9%.
200,000
■ The largest increase in the number of
petitioned cases between 1985 and 0
2002 was seen in drug offense cases 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
(265%), followed by public order
offense cases (178%) and person
offense cases (137%).
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the number

of formally handled property offense
cases increased 13%. Unlike the
trends for the other three offense cat-
egories, the number of formally han- In contrast to the other general offense categories, the number of
dled property offense cases peaked property offense cases decreased 25% between 1996 and 2002
in 1996 and then declined through
2002. Petitioned delinquency cases
500,000
Offense profile of delinquency ● ●
●
cases, 2002: ● ●
400,000 ● ● ●
Property ●
Most serious ● ●
● ● ●
offense Nonpetitioned Petitioned ● ● ●
300,000 ●
Person 23% 25% ◆ ◆

Person ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Property 41 37 ◆
200,000 ◆
Drugs 11 13 ◆ Public order
Public order 25 26 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
Total 100% 100% 100,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Number Drugs
of cases 680,500 934,900
0
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
rounding.
■ In 2002, the offense profiles of non-

petitioned and petitioned delinquency
cases were very similar.

Intake Decision
In 2002, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 of 10 delinquency cases ■ The overall likelihood of formal han-
dling was greater for more serious
Number of Petitioned cases as offenses within the same general
Most serious offense petitioned cases a percent of all cases offense category. In 2002, for exam-
Total delinquency 934,900 58% ple, 69% of aggravated assault
Total person 233,300 60 cases were handled formally, com-
Criminal homicide 1,400 82 pared with 55% of simple assault
Forcible rape 3,700 78 cases. Similarly, 78% of burglary
Robbery 18,600 86 cases and 79% of motor vehicle theft
Aggravated assault 32,700 69 cases were handled formally by juve-
Simple assault 147,900 55 nile courts, compared with 44% of
Other violent sex offenses 13,300 81 larceny-theft and 52% of vandalism
Other person offenses 15,800 63 cases.
Total property 343,500 55
Burglary 77,800 78 ■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli-
Larceny-theft 124,100 44 hood of formal processing increased:
Motor vehicle theft 30,300 79 from 43% to 61% for drug offense
Arson 5,400 67 cases, from 54% to 60% for person
Vandalism 49,100 52
offense cases, from 45% to 59% for
Trespassing 23,900 47
public order cases, and from 44% to
Stolen property offenses 16,500 75
Other property offenses 16,500 63
55% for property offense cases.
Drug law violations 117,100 61
■ Between 1987 and 1996, drug
Public order offenses 240,900 59
Obstruction of justice 129,500 71
offense cases were more likely than
Disorderly conduct 47,900 44 other cases to be handled formally.
Weapons offenses 21,400 60
■ Since 1996, person offense cases
Liquor law violations 9,800 35
Nonviolent sex offenses 8,500 55 have been as likely to be handled
Other public order offenses 23,800 61 formally as cases involving drug
Violent Crime Index* 56,400 75 offenses.
Property Crime Index** 237,600 55
* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
Between 1985 and 2002, the use of formal processing increased in

all general offense categories
Percent of cases petitioned

70%
Drugs
60% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Person ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ●
50% ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆
● ● ● ●
● Property Public order
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Intake Decision
Age Between 1985 and 2002, the likelihood of formal handling increased
more for younger than older youth and for females than males
■ In each year between 1985 and
2002, delinquency cases involving Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by age group:
juveniles age 16 or older were more 15 or younger 16 or older
likely to be petitioned than were
Public Public
cases involving younger juveniles. Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
■ In 2002, 55% of delinquency cases 1985 42% 51% 40% 38% 44% 50% 59% 50% 47% 46%
involving youth age 15 or younger 1986 44 52 42 47 45 50 58 49 51 45
were petitioned, compared with 61% 1987 44 51 41 53 45 51 58 50 56 47
of cases involving older youth. 1988 45 52 42 58 47 52 58 51 59 48
1989 47 53 44 62 49 54 59 52 62 49
■ Since 1991, the proportion of drug
offense cases petitioned has declined 1990 46 52 43 66 49 53 58 51 65 50
for both age groups, while the propor- 1991 47 52 43 68 49 54 59 51 68 50
tion of petitioned cases for each of 1992 47 52 44 66 49 54 58 51 65 52
the other general offense categories 1993 49 54 46 62 51 56 61 54 64 55
1994 50 54 46 59 52 57 62 55 62 56
has grown.
1995 51 56 47 59 54 58 63 55 62 58
■ Among youth age 15 or younger, 1996 53 58 50 58 54 59 64 56 62 59
drug offense cases were more likely 1997 54 57 50 58 56 59 63 56 61 60
to be handled formally than any other 1998 55 58 52 60 57 60 64 58 63 61
offense category between 1987 and 1999 55 59 52 59 56 60 64 57 63 60
1998. Since 1999, person offense
2000 55 59 52 59 57 61 65 58 62 61
cases have been as likely as or more
2001 55 58 51 56 56 60 64 58 62 61
likely than drug offense cases to be 2002 55 58 52 58 57 61 65 59 63 61
petitioned for adjudication.
■ Among youth age 16 or older, person Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by gender:
offense cases were more likely to be
Male Female
handled formally than any other
offense category between 1995 and Public Public
2002. Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 48% 57% 46% 45% 45% 35% 41% 31% 33% 44%
1986 49 58 48 52 46 36 43 31 39 43
1987 50 57 48 57 47 36 42 31 43 43
Gender 1988 51 57 48 61 49 37 43 32 46 44
1989 52 58 50 64 50 38 43 34 47 46
tion of delinquency cases petitioned 1990 52 57 49 68 51 37 42 32 51 45
1991 52 57 49 70 51 38 44 33 52 46
increased for males from 48% to
1992 53 57 50 68 52 38 43 33 49 46
61% and for females from 35% to
1993 55 60 52 65 55 40 46 35 48 48
50%.
1994 56 60 53 63 55 42 47 37 46 49
■ Regardless of offense, for each year 1995 57 61 53 63 57 43 49 37 48 50
between 1985 and 2002, juvenile 1996 58 63 56 62 58 45 51 40 49 52
courts were more likely to petition 1997 59 62 56 62 59 47 51 41 50 54
cases involving males than females. 1998 60 63 58 64 60 48 53 42 52 54
1999 60 63 58 63 60 49 54 42 52 53
2000 60 64 58 63 60 49 54 42 52 54
2001 60 62 58 61 60 48 53 41 51 53
2002 61 63 59 62 61 50 54 43 53 54

Intake Decision
Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by race: Race

White Black
■ The proportion of delinquency cases
Public Public
petitioned increased for all three
racial groups between 1985 and
1985 42% 47% 41% 39% 42% 56% 64% 52% 61% 55% 2002: from 42% to 55% for cases
1986 43 49 42 42 42 57 63 53 70 56 involving white youth, from 56% to
1987 42 47 41 45 42 59 63 54 75 60 65% for cases involving black youth,
1988 44 48 43 48 44 59 63 53 77 58 and from 44% to 58% for youth of
1989 45 49 44 49 46 61 63 56 80 59 other races.
1990 45 49 43 53 45 59 62 54 82 60 ■ Across all offense categories
1991 45 49 44 53 45 59 62 53 83 59
between 1985 and 2002, delinquency
1992 46 49 44 52 47 58 61 53 81 58
cases involving black juveniles were
1993 48 52 47 51 50 61 64 56 80 60
more likely to be petitioned than were
1994 49 52 47 50 52 61 65 56 78 60
cases involving white youth or youth
1995 51 54 48 52 54 61 64 55 77 61 of other races.
1996 53 57 50 52 54 63 65 58 78 61
1997 53 56 51 53 56 62 64 58 77 61 ■ In 2002, racial differences in the like-
1998 54 57 52 55 56 65 66 60 80 65 lihood of petitioning were greatest for
1999 54 57 52 54 56 65 68 60 80 64 drug offense cases: 78% of drug
2000 55 58 52 56 56 65 67 60 78 64 cases involving black juveniles were
2001 54 56 52 55 56 64 66 60 77 63 petitioned, compared with 56% for
2002 55 57 52 56 57 65 66 61 78 63 both white juveniles and juveniles of
other races.
Other race
■ The likelihood that a delinquency
Public
case would be handled formally var-
Year All Person Property Drugs order
ied far less among offense categories
1985 44% 60% 42% 34% 45% for white youth than for black youth.
1986 46 61 44 41 44
1987 46 59 45 38 45 ■ For black juveniles, drug offense
1988 49 62 47 44 45 cases were more likely to be handled
1989 48 58 46 44 47 formally than any other offense cate-
gory between 1986 and 2002.
1990 50 59 47 44 52
1991 51 60 48 46 51 ■ For all three racial groups, the pro-
1992 49 56 47 46 50 portion of pubic order cases
1993 48 58 46 49 46 petitioned for adjudication increased
1994 49 59 47 50 48 between 1993 and 2002: from 50%
1995 50 58 47 46 50 to 57% for cases involving white
1996 50 58 46 52 54 youth, from 60% to 63% for cases
1997 51 58 47 51 54 involving black youth, and from 46%
1998 52 57 48 54 57 to 63% for youth of other races.
1999 52 58 48 55 56
■ Between 1996 and 2002, property
2000 56 60 52 58 60
offense cases were least likely to be
2001 55 58 52 55 60
handled formally among all racial
2002 58 59 54 56 63
groups.

Waiver
■ The number of delinquency cases There were slightly fewer cases judicially waived to criminal court in
judicially waived to criminal court in 2002 than in 1985
1994, the peak year, was 83%
greater than the number waived in Cases judicially waived to criminal court
1985. This increase was followed by a 14,000
46% decline between 1994 and 2002.
As a result, the number of cases 12,000
waived in 2002 was 1% below the
number waived in 1985. 10,000
Total delinquency
■ The number of judicially waived per- 8,000
son offense cases increased 130%
between 1985 and 1994 and then 6,000
declined 47% through 2002. The
number of person offense cases judi- 4,000
cially waived in 2002 was 23% more
than the number waived in 1985. 2,000
■ The number of drug offense cases 0

judicially waived increased 435% 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
between 1985 and 1991 (the peak for
drug offenses), then decreased 45%
between 1991 and 2002. As a result,
the number of cases waived in 2002
was 194% greater than the number
waived in 1985.
■ The number of judicially waived prop-

erty offense cases increased 29% In 1985, more property offense cases were judicially waived than
between 1985 and 1994 and then cases in any other offense category; by 2002, the largest proportion
declined 48% between 1994 and (by a small amount) was person offense cases
2002. The number of property offense
cases judicially waived in 2002 was Number of cases
33% less than the number waived in 6,000
1985.
■ For public order offenses, the number 5,000 ●

● ●
of waived cases increased 79% Property ● ●
between 1985 and 1994 and then 4,000 ● ● ●
● ● ● ●
●
declined 45% between 1994 and ●
Person
2002. As a result, the number of judi- 3,000 ●
●
cially waived public order cases was ●
2% less than the number waived in ●
2,000 Drugs
1985.
◆ ◆
■ The decline in the number of judicial 1,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
waivers after 1994 may be attributa- Public order
ble to the large increase in the num- 0
ber of states that passed legislation 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
excluding certain serious offenses
from juvenile court jurisdiction and
legislation permitting the prosecutor
to file certain cases directly in crimi-
nal court.

Waiver
Between 1989 and 1991, cases involving drug offenses were most ■ Between 1988 and 1991, the propor-
likely to be judicially waived; for all other years between 1985 and tion of judicially waived drug offense
2002, person offense cases were most likely to be waived cases increased sharply from 1.4% to
3.9%. After peaking in 1991, the pro-
Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court portion of waived drug offense cases
4% decreased each year, with 0.8% of
drug cases being waived in 2002.
Drugs ■ The proportion of judicially waived

3% person offense cases decreased
increased steadily through 1994,
Person
2% when 2.7% of such cases were
waived. Since then, the proportion
Property has decreased steadily; 1.3% of the
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● petitioned person offense caseload
1% ● ●
● ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ● were waived in 2002.
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Public order ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ■ The proportion of property offense
◆
0% cases that were judicially waived
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 decreased fairly steadily between
1985 and 2002; public order offenses
followed a similar pattern.
■ The proportion of the waived case-

load involving person offenses
increased from 33% in 1985 to a
peak of 44% in 1995. In 2002, person
offense cases made up 41% of the
Between 1985 and 2002, the offense profile of the judicially waived judicially waived caseload.
caseload changed substantially—the share of property offense ■ The proportion of all waived
cases decreased and the share of person offense cases increased delinquency cases that involved a
property offense as the most serious
Proportion of judicially waived delinquency cases charge declined from 53% in 1985 to
100% 36% in 2002.
90%
■ Drug offense cases represented 5%
80% of the judicially waived cases in 1985;
70% by 1991, they comprised 17% of the
waived caseload. Drug offense cases
60%
made up 14% of the 2002 judicially
50% waived caseload.
40%
■ On average, public order offense
30% cases accounted for 8% of the
20% waived caseload between 1985 and
2002.
10%
0%
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Person Property Drugs Public order

Waiver
Age Cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were much more likely to be
judicially waived to criminal court than those involving younger
■ In 2002, 1.5% of all petitioned delin- juveniles
quency cases involving juveniles age
16 or older were waived to criminal Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by age group:
court, compared with 0.2% of cases 15 or younger 16 or older
involving younger juveniles.
Public Public
■ For older juveniles, the probability of Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
waiver peaked in 1991 at 3.2%, hov-
1985 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.9% 5.2% 2.9% 1.7% 1.4%
ered around that level through 1994, 1986 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.7 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.2
and then declined. 1987 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 3.7 2.5 2.1 0.9
1988 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.3 3.7 2.4 2.2 1.0
■ This pattern was most marked in 1989 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.6 3.9 2.4 3.8 1.0
waivers for older juveniles charged
with drug offenses, which peaked at 1990 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.6 4.0 2.4 3.7 1.1
6.2% in 1991 and then steadily 1991 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.2 4.8 2.7 6.2 1.2
declined to 1.4% in 2002. 1992 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.9 5.0 2.4 3.8 1.3
1993 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 3.1 5.7 2.5 3.5 1.3
■ Regardless of offense, less than 1% 1994 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.1 5.6 2.6 3.2 1.3
of all petitioned delinquency cases 1995 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.3 4.6 2.0 2.4 0.8
involving juveniles age 15 or younger 1996 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.2 4.3 2.0 2.2 0.6
were waived to criminal court 1997 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.0 3.7 1.9 2.0 0.7
between 1985 and 2002. 1998 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.9 3.2 2.0 2.1 0.7
1999 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.7 3.1 1.7 1.9 0.6
2000 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.7 1.7 1.7 0.6
2001 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.4
Gender 2002 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.7 1.6 1.4 0.5
■ Regardless of offense, cases involv-
ing males were more likely to be Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by gender:
judicially waived than cases involving
females. Male Female
Public Public
■ Among males, the proportion of peti- Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
tioned drug offense cases judicially
waived increased substantially 1985 1.6% 2.7% 1.4% 1.2 0.9% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%
between 1985 and 1991 (from 1.2% 1986 1.5 2.4 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.2
to 4.1%) and then declined dramati- 1987 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3
1988 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.1
cally. In 2002, the proportion of male
1989 1.4 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.2
drug offense cases that were judi-
cially waived was less than 1%. 1990 1.4 2.2 1.1 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.1
1991 1.7 2.6 1.3 4.1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3 2.3 0.0
■ Judicially waived drug offense cases 1992 1.6 2.8 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2
involving females followed the same 1993 1.7 3.1 1.2 2.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2
pattern, increasing sharply between 1994 1.7 3.2 1.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.3
1985 and 1991 (from 0.4% to 2.3%)
1995 1.4 2.7 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.2
and then declining sharply. In 2002, 1996 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.1
the proportion of female drug offense 1997 1.2 2.2 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1
cases that were judicially waived was 1998 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1
0.5%. 1999 1.1 1.8 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.1
■ Compared with 1985, the 2002 2000 1.0 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.1
waived caseload contained a slightly 2001 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1
larger proportion of females (7% vs. 2002 0.9 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1
5%). This pattern was similar for all
four general offense categories.

Waiver
Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by race: Race

White Black
■ Among all racial groups, delinquency
Public Public
cases were less likely to be judicially
waived in 2002 than in 1985.
1985 1.2% 2.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% 1.8% 2.8% 1.5% 2.0% 1.1%
■ In 1985, the likelihood of judicial
1986 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.7 2.7 1.4 1.7 0.9
1987 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.4 1.4 2.1 1.3 1.9 0.7 waiver among cases involving white
1988 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.4 2.1 1.2 1.8 0.6 youth was 1.2%, and for cases
1989 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.3 3.5 0.8 involving black youth it was 1.8%.
1990 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.8 2.6 1.2 3.6 0.9 ■ Between 1989 and 1993, delinquen-
1991 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.6 0.5 2.1 2.8 1.4 5.4 0.9 cy cases involving black juveniles
1992 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.9 2.9 1.3 3.3 1.0 were nearly twice as likely as those
1993 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.4 0.6 2.0 3.3 1.3 3.0 1.0 involving white juveniles to be judi-
1994 1.3 2.2 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.8 3.1 1.2 2.7 0.7 cially waived.
1995 1.0 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.6 2.7 1.0 2.2 0.6
1996 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.3 1.4 2.4 1.0 2.0 0.5 ■ In 2002, the overall likelihood of a
1997 0.9 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.3 2.0 0.9 1.8 0.5 youth being judicially waived to crim-
1998 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.0 0.3 1.1 1.6 0.9 2.0 0.4 inal court for a delinquent offense
1999 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.5 was similar for whites (0.7%), blacks
(0.8%), and other races (0.7%).
2000 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.7 0.3
2001 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 ■ In 2002, cases involving person
2002 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.2 0.3 offenses were most likely to be
waived for youth of all races: 1.2%
Other race
among white juveniles, 1.3% among
Public black juveniles, and 1.5% among
Year All Person Property Drugs order youth of other races.
1985 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% ■ Among black juveniles, the use of
1986 0.7 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.0
waiver to criminal court for cases
1987 0.9 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.9
involving drug offenses peaked in
1988 0.9 1.8 0.8 0.1 0.2
1991, when it was more than 3 times
1989 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.2
that of white youth (5.4% vs. 1.6%)
1990 0.9 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 and 6 times that of youth of other
1991 0.8 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.0 races (0.9%).
1992 1.2 3.2 0.7 2.6 0.4
1993 1.4 3.3 0.9 1.4 0.8 ■ For black youth in 2002, drug
1994 1.7 3.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 offense cases were nearly as likely
1995 1.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 as person offense cases to be judi-
1996 1.5 2.9 1.2 1.7 0.6 cially waived (1.2% and 1.3%,
1997 1.8 3.5 1.5 1.9 0.7 respectively).
1998 1.3 2.7 1.0 1.2 0.5
1999 1.1 2.4 0.7 1.3 0.7
2000 1.1 2.0 0.9 1.7 0.5
2001 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.2 0.4
2002 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.3

Waiver
■ The number of judicially waived Between 1985 and 2002, the number of cases judicially waived to
cases involving white juveniles criminal court increased 6% for cases involving white youth and
increased 67% between 1985 and decreased 16% for cases involving black youth
1994, from 4,200 to 6,900, and then
declined 36% to the 2002 level of
Delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court
4,400.
7,000
■ For black juveniles, the number of White
judicially waived cases nearly dou- 6,000
bled between 1985 and 1994, from
5,000
2,900 to 5,700, then declined 57%
through 2002 to 2,500.
4,000
■ The number of judicially waived per- Black
3,000
son offense cases involving white
youth increased 130% between 1985
2,000
and 1996, from 1,100 to 2,500, then
declined 36% to 1,600 cases in 2002. 1,000
■ Similarly, among black juveniles, the
0
number of person offense cases 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
waived increased 123% between
1985 and 1994, from 1,300 to 2,800,
then decreased 57% to 1,200 cases
in 2002.
Cases judicially waived to criminal court Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Offense profile of waived cases: 3,000 4,000
Person Property
2,500
Most serious Black 3,000
2,000
offense 1985 2002 White
1,500 2,000
White White
1,000 Black
Person 26% 37% 1,000
500
Property 61 41
Drugs 4 13 0 0
Public order 9 9 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Total 100% 100%

Black Cases judicially waived to criminal court Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Person 43% 49% 1,600 800
Property 43 27 Drugs Public order
1,200 Black
Drugs 6 16 600
White
Public order 9 8
800 400
Total 100% 100%
White Black
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 400 200
rounding.
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ In 2002, person offense cases
accounted for nearly half (49%) of
the waived cases involving black
juveniles.
■ For white youth, property offense

cases accounted for the largest share
of the waived caseload each year
from 1985 to 2002.

Adjudication
Between 1996 and 2002, the proportion of formally processed ■ In 1985, 30% of all delinquency
delinquency cases steadily increased; as did the proportion that cases resulted in either adjudication
resulted in a delinquency adjudication or waiver of delinquency or waiver to criminal
court. By 2002, this proportion had
Proportion of delinquency cases increased to 39%.
100%
■ Between 1995 and 2002, the number
90% of delinquency cases that resulted in
80% a delinquency adjudication or were
70%
judicially waived to criminal court
increased 16%, while the number of
60%
formally handled cases that were not
50% adjudicated delinquent decreased
40% 24%.
30%
■ The likelihood of being adjudicated
20% delinquent was greater for more seri-
10% ous offenses within the same gener-
0%
al offense category.
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Within the 2002 person offense cate-
Nonpetitioned
gory, 67% of petitioned aggravated
Petitioned: not adjudicated delinquent assault cases were adjudicated
Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived delinquent, compared with 61% of
simple assault cases.
In 2002, youth were adjudicated delinquent in two-thirds of all ■ In the property offense category in
petitioned delinquency cases 2002, 75% of petitioned burglary
Percentage of cases were adjudicated delinquent,
Number of cases petitioned cases compared with 71% of motor vehicle
Most serious offense adjudicated delinquent adjudicated delinquent theft cases and 67% of larceny-theft
Total delinquency 624,500 67% cases.
Person 145,800 62
Criminal homicide 800 57 ■ Among public order offenses in
Forcible rape 2,500 68 2002, 69% of the weapons violations
Robbery 11,900 64 cases were adjudicated delinquent,
Aggravated assault 21,900 67 compared with 62% of disorderly
Simple assault 90,500 61 conduct cases and 61% of liquor law
Other violent sex offenses 9,100 68 violation cases.
Other person offenses 9,200 58
Property 233,600 68
Burglary 58,300 75
Larceny-theft 83,600 67
Motor vehicle theft 21,500 71
Arson 3,400 63
Vandalism 31,800 65
Trespassing 13,600 57
Stolen property offenses 10,200 62
Other property offenses 11,300 68
Drug law violations 79,100 68
Public order offenses 166,000 69
Obstruction of justice 92,800 72
Disorderly conduct 29,900 62
Weapons offenses 14,700 69
Liquor law violations 6,000 61
Nonviolent sex offenses 6,100 72
Other public order offenses 16,500 69
Violent Crime Index 37,000 66
Property Crime Index 166,700 70
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Adjudication
■ Beginning in 1997 and continuing Between 1985 and 2002, the number of cases in which the youth was
through 2002, the annual number adjudicated delinquent increased 85% (from 337,900 to 624,500)
of delinquency cases in which the
youth was adjudicated delinquent Cases adjudicated delinquent
remained rather constant. In 2002, 700,000
624,500 cases were adjudicated
delinquent, compared with 337,900 600,000
cases in 1985.
500,000
■ Among person offense cases, the
Total delinquency
number of adjudicated cases 400,000
2002 (55,600 vs. 145,800). 300,000
■ The number of adjudicated cases 200,000
involving property offenses increased
16% between 1985 and 2002 100,000
(201,000 vs. 233,600).
0
■ Between 1985 and 2002, drug 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
offense cases had the greatest per-
cent increase in the number of cases
adjudicated delinquent. In 1985,
approximately 22,100 cases involving
drug offense violations were adjudi-
cated delinquent. By 2002, the num-
ber of adjudicated drug offense cases
had increased 257% to 79,100
cases. Between 1998 and 2002, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
increased for cases involving person, drug, and public order
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the number offenses but decreased for cases involving property offenses
of public order offense cases adjudi-
cated delinquent increased 180%,
from 59,200 cases to 166,000 cases. Cases adjudicated delinquent
300,000
Offense profile of cases ● ● ●
● ● ●
adjudicated delinquent: 250,000 ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
● ● Property
Most serious 200,000 ● ● ●
offense 1985 2002 Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 16% 23% 150,000 ◆
Property 59 37 ◆ ◆
Person ◆
Drugs 7 13
100,000 ◆ ◆
Public order 18 27 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Total 100% 100% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
50,000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Drugs
rounding.
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Compared with 1985, the 2002 adju-
dicated delinquent caseload included
greater proportions of person, public
order, and drug offense cases and a
substantially smaller proportion of
property offense cases.

Adjudication
Between 1995 and 2002, the likelihood of petitioned cases resulting ■ The likelihood of delinquency adjudi-
in a delinquency adjudication steadily increased from 57% to 67% cation decreased from 65% to 57%
increased to 67% in 2002.
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
■ In 2002, the likelihood of a
70% delinquency adjudication for cases
involving property, drug, and public
60% order offenses was about the same
Total delinquency as in 1985. However, for cases
50%
involving a person offense, the likeli-
40% hood of a delinquency adjudication
was somewhat greater in 2002 than
30% in 1985 (62% vs. 57%).
■ Among the four general offense cate-

20%
gories, person offense cases were
10% least likely to result in delinquency
adjudication for all years between
0% 1985 and 2002.
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ The likelihood of adjudication among
cases involving a property offense
decreased from 66% to 58%
between 1985 and 1995 then steadi-
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent ly increased to 68% in 2002.
70% 70%
60% 60% ■ The likelihood of adjudication among
50% Person Property
50% drug offense cases decreased from
40% 40% 69% to 57% between 1985 and 1991
30% 30% and then steadily increased to 68%
20% 20%
in 2002.
10% 10%
0% 0% ■ Among public order cases, the likeli-
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
hood of adjudication decreased
steadily from 68% to 58% between
1985 and 1996 and then increased
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
70% 70%
to 69% in 2002.
60% 60%
Drugs Public order
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Adjudication
Age Between 1997 and 2002, drug offense cases involving younger juveniles
were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent than those involving older
■ In each year from 1985 through juveniles
2002, juveniles age 15 or younger
were more likely than older juveniles Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by age group:
to be adjudicated delinquent, regard- 15 or younger 16 or older
less of offense.
Public Public
■ Regardless of age, person offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases were less likely than other
1985 66% 58% 67% 71% 71% 64% 55% 66% 68% 66%
offense categories to be adjudicated
1986 65 58 66 69 67 62 56 64 65 63
delinquent for each year between 1987 64 58 65 66 67 62 57 63 62 63
1985 and 2002. 1988 62 55 63 62 65 59 54 61 57 61
1989 62 57 63 66 66 61 56 62 62 62
■ Between 1985 and 1995, the likeli-
hood of adjudication for drug offense 1990 61 56 62 62 64 59 53 61 56 60
cases involving juveniles 15 or 1991 59 54 61 60 61 57 53 59 54 58
younger decreased steadily from 1992 59 55 60 59 62 57 53 59 56 57
71% to 59%. After that time, the pro- 1993 60 55 61 59 63 57 51 58 56 58
portion increased. In 2002, 69% of 1994 59 55 60 59 62 56 51 57 56 57
drug offense cases involving juve- 1995 58 55 58 59 61 55 51 57 56 56
niles under age 16 resulted in a 1996 58 55 59 60 61 56 52 57 56 56
delinquency adjudication. 1997 60 57 61 63 62 58 54 59 59 59
1998 63 60 65 65 62 60 57 62 61 59
■ For drug offense cases involving 1999 66 63 67 68 67 62 59 64 64 63
juveniles age 16 and older, the likeli-
hood of adjudication decreased from 2000 69 64 70 71 71 66 61 67 67 68
68% to 56% between 1985 and 2001 67 62 68 70 68 65 60 66 66 68
2002 67 63 69 69 69 66 61 67 66 68
1996. In a trend similar to their
younger counterparts, the proportion
of drug offense cases involving older Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by gender:
juveniles that resulted in adjudication
increased to 66% in 2002. Male Female
Public Public
Gender
1985 66% 58% 67% 70% 69% 62% 51% 62% 66% 68%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, male 1986 64 58 66 67 66 60 51 60 66 64
cases generally were more likely to 1987 63 58 64 64 65 59 53 59 59 64
be adjudicated delinquent than were 1988 61 56 63 59 63 57 51 56 56 63
female cases. 1989 63 57 64 64 64 57 51 57 60 62
■ In each year from 1999 through 1990 61 55 63 59 62 57 52 57 55 61

1991 59 55 61 57 60 53 49 54 53 58
2002, however, petitioned drug
1992 59 55 60 58 60 54 50 54 52 58
offense cases involving females were
1993 59 54 61 58 61 54 50 53 54 59
as likely or more likely to result in a
1994 58 54 60 58 61 53 51 53 54 57
delinquency adjudication compared
with cases involving males. 1995 58 54 59 58 59 52 50 52 54 57
1996 58 55 59 58 59 53 50 52 55 57
■ Between 1985 and 2002, for both 1997 60 57 61 61 61 55 52 55 58 59
male and female juveniles, the likeli- 1998 62 60 64 63 61 59 56 59 60 60
hood of a delinquency adjudication 1999 65 62 66 65 65 62 59 62 66 64
increased more for person offense 2000 68 63 70 69 70 65 60 65 69 70
cases than for other offenses; how- 2001 66 62 68 67 69 64 59 64 69 67
ever, the increase was greater for 2002 67 63 69 67 70 64 60 65 69 67
females (from 51% to 60%) than for
males (58% to 63%).

Adjudication
Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by race: Race

White Black
■ In each year between 1985 and
Public Public 2002, cases involving black youth
were less likely to result in a delin-
1985 67% 59% 68% 70% 70% 59% 53% 61% 65% 64% quency adjudication than were cases
1986 65 59 66 69 66 59 54 61 63 62 involving white youth or youth of
1987 65 59 65 66 66 59 56 60 60 61 other races.
1988 62 56 63 62 65 57 53 59 56 59
1989 63 58 64 64 65 59 54 59 63 61 ■ For black juveniles, the likelihood of
a delinquency adjudication was
1990 62 57 63 61 64 56 51 59 57 57 slightly lower in 2002 than in 1985
1991 60 55 61 59 60 55 51 56 55 58 (58% vs. 59%), while for white youth
1992 60 56 61 60 60 54 51 55 55 58 and youth of other races it was high-
1993 60 56 61 59 62 54 50 55 56 58 er (71% vs. 67% and 75% vs. 72%,
1994 60 56 61 60 62 53 49 53 54 56
respectively).
1995 58 55 59 59 59 53 50 54 55 56
1996 59 55 59 60 60 54 51 54 55 56 ■ Regardless of race, the likelihood of
1997 61 57 61 62 61 56 53 56 57 59 a delinquency adjudication for per-
1998 63 60 65 65 62 59 57 60 58 59 son offense cases was greater in
1999 66 64 67 68 65 61 58 63 60 64 2002 than in 1985. For both white
youth and youth of other races, the
2000 70 65 70 71 71 63 59 65 63 66
proportion of person offense cases
2001 69 64 70 71 71 59 56 60 58 61
2002 71 67 71 72 72 58 56 60 57 61 resulting in adjudication was 8 per-
centage points higher in 2002 than in
Other race 1985 (67% vs. 59% and 76% vs.
68%, respectively), compared with
Public
only 3 percentage points for black
youth (56% vs. 53%).
1985 72% 68% 73% 77% 72%
1986 72 66 73 74 74 ■ For each year between 1985 and
1987 70 65 72 69 72 2002, drug offense cases involving
1988 67 63 68 64 71 black juveniles were less likely to
1989 69 66 70 67 70 result in adjudication than were drug
cases involving white juveniles or
1990 70 64 71 67 72 youth of other races.
1991 67 64 68 60 69
1992 67 64 69 64 66 ■ For youth of other races, the likeli-
1993 63 63 63 66 61 hood of a delinquency adjudication
1994 63 64 62 68 62 was higher in 2002 than in 1985 for
1995 64 62 64 64 63 cases involving person, property, and
1996 62 61 63 61 63 public order offenses but lower for
1997 65 66 64 68 64 cases involving drug offenses.
1998 65 64 65 70 63
1999 66 66 66 67 65 ■ The likelihood of a delinquency adju-
dication for public order offense
2000 70 66 71 71 71
cases was lower in 2002 than in
2001 73 71 73 72 74
1985 for cases involving black youth,
2002 75 76 76 72 75
but higher for white youth and youth
of other races.

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement
■ The number of cases adjudicated The number of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-
delinquent that resulted in out-of- home placement increased 59% between 1985 and 1998 and then
home placement increased 44% decreased 10% through 2002
between 1985 and 2002. During this
period, the number of cases involving Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
the use of out-of-home placement
180,000
increased 179% for drug offense
cases, 109% for person offense 160,000
cases, and 83% for public order
140,000
offense cases. Total delinquency
120,000
■ The number of cases involving out-
of-home placement peaked in 2000 100,000
at 161,700 cases. Between 2000 and 80,000
2002, the number of cases resulting
60,000
in out-of-home placement decreased
6% for cases involving person offens- 40,000
es, 12% for property offense cases,
20,000
and 13% for both drug offense cases
and cases involving public order 0
offenses. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Public order offense cases include

escapes from institutions, weapons
offenses, and probation and parole
violations. This may help to explain
the relatively high number of public
order offense cases involving out-of-
home placement. The number of property offense cases adjudicated delinquent that
resulted in out-of-home placement decreased 5% between 1985
Offense profile of cases and 2002
adjudicated delinquent resulting
in out-of-home placement: Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
70,000
● ● ●
Most serious ● ● ●
● ● ●
offense 1985 2002 60,000 ● ●
● ●
● ● ● Property
Person 18% 26% ● ●
Property 56 37 50,000
◆
Drugs 5 10 ◆ ◆ ◆
Public order 22 28 40,000 ◆ ◆
Person ◆ ◆
Total 100% 100%
30,000 ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ Public order
Cases resulting ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
in out-of-home 20,000
placement 100,400 144,000 Drugs
10,000
rounding. 0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Property offense cases are the
largest share of cases adjudicated
delinquent that result in out-of-home
placement, although the proportion
declined substantially between 1985
and 2002.

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 23% of all cases ■ Although the likelihood that an adju-
adjudicated delinquent in 2002, down from 30% in 1985 dicated case would result in out-of-
home placement decreased
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement between 1985 and 2002 for each of
35% the four major offense categories,
the number of cases adjudicated
30% delinquent resulting in out-of-home
Total delinquency placement increased 44%.
25%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the largest
20% decline in the proportion of adjudi-
cated cases resulting in out-of-home
15% placement was seen in cases
involving public order offenses (from
10% 37% to 24%). The proportion
decreased for person offense cases
5% from 32% to 25%, for drug offense
cases from 23% to 18%, and for
0% property offense cases from 28% to
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 23%.
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent

resulting in out-of-home placement resulting in out-of-home placement
40% 30%
25%
30% Property
Person 20%
20% 15%
10%
10%
5%
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent

resulting in out-of-home placement resulting in out-of-home placement
40% 40%
30% 30%
Drugs Public order
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Age Between 1985 and 2002, the likelihood of out-of-home placement

declined more for for younger than older youth and more for females
■ In each year from 1985 through than males
2002, person and property offense
cases involving juveniles age 16 or Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
older adjudicated delinquent were age group:
more likely to result in out-of-home 15 or younger 16 or older
placement than were cases involving
Public Public
youth age 15 or younger. Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 30% 31% 27% 24% 39% 30% 33% 29% 23% 33%
■ For youth age 15 or younger, the use
1986 30 32 27 32 40 31 34 29 30 34
of out-of-home placement declined 1987 30 31 27 34 40 30 32 28 30 35
17 percentage points for public order 1988 30 31 27 36 39 30 32 28 32 35
offense cases between 1985 and 1989 31 33 27 39 40 31 35 28 35 36
2002, 7 percentage points for person
offense cases and drug offense 1990 32 34 28 39 40 32 36 29 34 35
cases, and 6 percentage points for 1991 30 34 26 39 38 30 35 27 35 32
property offense cases. All of these 1992 29 32 26 37 35 30 35 27 33 33
1993 28 30 25 33 33 29 34 27 30 31
declines were greater than those for
1994 28 30 26 30 32 29 33 27 28 30
older youth
1995 27 29 25 26 32 28 32 26 23 30
1996 26 28 24 24 29 27 32 26 23 29
Gender
1997 26 27 24 23 30 27 31 26 22 31
1998 25 26 23 23 28 27 30 26 22 30
■ For each year between 1985 and
1999 25 26 23 22 28 27 30 26 23 29
2002, person, property, and drug
offense cases involving males adjudi- 2000 25 26 23 20 27 27 31 26 21 30
cated delinquent were more likely to 2001 22 24 21 17 24 26 29 25 20 28
result in out-of-home placement than 2002 22 24 21 17 22 25 29 24 19 26
were cases involving females.
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the use of Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
out-of-home placement declined gender:
more for public order offense cases Male Female
than for any other offense category Public Public
for both males (11 percentage Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
points) and females (17 percentage 1985 30% 33% 29% 24% 36% 26% 26% 21% 21% 37%
points). 1986 31 34 29 31 37 26 25 21 27 38
1987 31 33 28 32 37 25 22 21 26 37
■ For males in 2002, person offense 1988 31 33 28 34 37 24 22 20 30 35
cases adjudicated delinquent were 1989 32 35 29 37 39 25 24 20 31 36
most likely to result in out-of-home
placement (27%), followed by public 1990 33 36 29 37 38 25 23 21 31 36
order offense cases (25%), property 1991 31 36 27 38 35 24 24 19 28 34
cases (24%), and cases involving 1992 31 35 28 35 35 23 24 19 28 31
drug offenses (19%). 1993 30 33 27 31 33 22 24 18 25 28
1994 30 33 27 29 32 22 22 19 23 27
■ For females in 2002, adjudicated 1995 29 32 27 25 32 21 22 18 17 27
public order offense cases were 1996 28 32 26 24 30 20 21 18 17 25
most likely to result in out-of-home 1997 28 31 26 23 32 20 20 17 15 26
placement (20%), followed by person 1998 27 30 26 23 30 19 20 17 16 24
cases (19%), property cases (16%), 1999 27 30 26 24 30 20 21 17 16 25
and drug offense cases (14%).
2000 27 30 26 22 29 20 22 17 14 24
2001 25 28 24 20 27 19 20 16 13 21
2002 25 27 24 19 25 18 19 16 14 20

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by Race

race:
White Black ■ After adjudication, the likelihood of
out-of-home placement in 2002 was
Public Public
greater for black juveniles (27%)
than for white juveniles (21%) and
1985 29% 31% 27% 21% 37% 31% 33% 29% 29% 36% youth of other races (25%).
1986 29 30 27 26 37 34 36 31 39 37
1987 29 30 26 27 37 33 34 31 36 38 ■ With the exception of drug offense
1988 29 30 26 29 37 33 33 30 38 37 cases involving black youth, the pro-
1989 30 32 26 31 38 34 35 30 42 39
portion of cases adjudicated delin-
1990 29 32 26 30 37 36 37 32 41 38
quent that resulted in out-of-home
1991 27 31 24 30 34 35 37 32 41 36
placement was smaller in 2002 than
1992 27 31 24 29 34 34 36 32 39 35
1993 26 29 23 25 31 33 35 31 36 33 in 1985 for all races and across all
1994 25 28 24 23 29 33 35 32 36 34 offenses.
1995 25 28 23 19 30 31 32 30 31 34
■ For adjudicated person offense
1996 24 28 23 17 27 31 32 29 32 34
1997 24 27 23 17 29 31 31 29 32 34 cases involving white youth, the like-
1998 24 26 22 17 27 30 29 28 33 33 lihood of out-of-home placement
1999 24 26 23 17 27 30 29 28 34 31 decreased 5 percentage points from
2000 24 27 23 16 27 29 29 27 32 31 29% in 1993 to 24% in 2002, while
2001 22 25 22 15 25 27 27 26 31 28 the decrease was somewhat larger
2002 21 24 21 15 23 27 27 25 30 27 for black youth (from 35% to 27%),
and for youth of other races (from
Other race 40% to 30%).
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order ■ In each year between 1986 and
2002, drug offense cases involving
1985 32% 36% 28% 32% 40%
black juveniles adjudicated delin-
1986 31 35 28 31 37
1987 29 34 27 31 36 quent were more likely to result in
1988 29 30 28 26 35 out-of-home placement than were
1989 31 33 29 30 39 drug cases involving white juveniles
1990 32 33 30 38 37 or youth of other races.
1991 32 39 29 41 32
1992 36 41 33 33 40 ■ For adjudicated public order cases,
1993 33 40 31 21 36 the use of out-of home placement
1994 32 37 31 25 34 decreased considerably between
1995 29 33 28 22 31 1985 and 2002 for white youth (from
1996 31 38 30 24 31 37% to 23%) and for youth of other
1997 28 31 28 19 31 races (from 40% to 24%), while for
1998 28 32 29 20 28 black youth the decrease was some-
1999 29 32 29 19 28 what smaller (from 36% to 27%).
2000 28 33 28 21 25
2001 28 34 28 18 27
2002 25 30 26 17 24

Dispositions: Probation
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the number Between 1998 and 2002, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation remained relatively unchanged
resulting in an order of probation
increased 103%, compared with a Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation
44% increase in the number of cases 400,000
resulting in out-of-home placement
350,000
■ Since 1985, the largest percent
increase in the number of cases 300,000
adjudicated delinquent receiving pro- Total delinquency
250,000
bation has been for drug offense
cases (267%), followed by public 200,000
order offenses (218%), person
offenses (198%), and property 150,000
offenses (28%). 100,000
■ Between 1998 and 2002, the number 50,000
of adjudicated cases resulting in an
order of probation increased 19% for 0
public order offense cases (from 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
79,700 to 95,200), 8% for drug
offense cases (from 47,200 to
50,900), and 6% for person offense
cases (from 86,700 to 92,000).
■ In contrast to the other general

offense categories, between 1998
and 2002, the number of adjudicated
property offense cases resulting in Between 1998 and 2002, the number of adjudicated cases resulting
probation decreased 14% (from in probation increased for person, drug, and public order offense
172,000 to 147,300). cases but decreased for property offense cases
Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation

180,000
● ●
160,000 ● ●
Property ●
● ●
● ● ●
140,000 ● ●
●
120,000 ● ●
● ● ●
100,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
80,000 ◆ ◆
Person ◆ Public order
60,000 ◆
◆
◆
40,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Drugs
20,000
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile courts ■ Probation was the most restrictive
disposition used in 62% (385,400) of
the cases adjudicated delinquent in
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation 2002, compared with 56% (189,600)
70% of the adjudicated caseload in 1985.
60%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli-
Total delinquency hood of probation for cases adjudi-
50%
cated delinquent increased more for
40% person (from 56% to 63%), property
(from 57% to 63%), and public order
30% (from 51% to 57%) offense
categories than for cases involving
20% drug offenses (from 63% to 64%).
10% Offense profile of cases

adjudicated delinquent that
0% resulted in probation:
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Most serious
offense 1985 2002
Person 16% 24%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent Property 61 38
resulting in probation resulting in probation Drugs 7 13
80% 80% Public order 16 25
Person Total 100% 100%
60% 60%
Property Cases resulting in
40% 40% formal probation 189,600 385,400
20% 20%
rounding.
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ In 2002, 38% of cases adjudicated
delinquent that resulted in probation
involved property offenses, while
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent person cases and public order cases
resulting in probation resulting in probation each accounted for about one quar-
80% 80%
ter (24% and 25%, respectively).
60% 60%
Drugs ■ The offense characteristics of cases
40% 40%
Public order adjudicated delinquent resulting in
probation changed between 1985
20% 20% and 2002, with an increase in the
proportion of cases involving person,
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 drug, and public order offenses and
a large decrease in the proportion
involving property offenses.

Age Between 1985 and 2000, the likelihood of probation being ordered
following an adjudication of delinquency increased for all
■ Among juveniles age 15 or younger, demographic groups
the overall likelihood of being placed
on formal probation increased from Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by age group:
58% in 1985 to 65% in 2002; similar 15 or younger 16 or older
increases were seen across offense
categories. Public Public
■ Among youth age 16 or older, the 1985 58% 58% 59% 64% 51% 54% 53% 55% 62% 50%
overall likelihood of being placed on 1986 58 58 59 60 50 53 53 54 58 49
formal probation increased between 1987 58 57 60 59 50 53 51 54 59 48
1985 and 2002 from 54% to 58%; 1988 57 56 59 57 51 53 51 54 56 49
similar increases were seen across 1989 57 56 59 55 51 54 51 56 55 50
offense categories. 1990 58 57 60 54 52 55 52 56 55 52
1991 58 55 60 52 53 54 51 56 50 52
■ For both age groups in 2002, adjudi- 1992 58 57 60 54 54 53 51 55 52 50
cated cases involving drug offenses 1993 58 58 60 55 56 53 51 55 53 51
were more likely to result in proba- 1994 58 58 59 56 55 52 51 54 52 49
tion than cases in other offense
categories. 1995 59 58 60 59 54 53 51 55 54 50
1996 62 60 63 62 59 55 53 57 57 52
1997 63 64 65 65 59 57 56 59 61 53
1998 65 64 67 67 62 59 57 61 61 54
1999 67 66 68 68 64 60 59 61 63 56
Gender
2000 65 65 66 67 63 58 57 60 61 54
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the overall 2001 65 65 66 67 62 57 57 59 62 52
likelihood of being placed on formal 2002 65 66 66 67 62 58 58 59 63 52
probation increased more for adjudi-
cated cases involving females (from
58% to 65%) than those involving Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by gender:
males (from 56% to 61%). Male Female
Public Public
■ For females in 2002, person offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases adjudicated delinquent were
1985 56% 55% 57% 62% 50% 58% 60% 60% 64% 51%
most likely to be placed on probation
1986 55 55 57 58 50 58 61 60 62 49
(69%), followed by drug offense
1987 55 53 57 59 49 57 61 59 64 50
cases (67%) and property offense 1988 55 53 56 56 49 58 59 60 59 52
cases (66%). Public order offense 1989 55 53 57 54 50 60 61 62 61 53
cases were least likely to result in
formal probation (60%). 1990 56 53 58 54 52 61 64 62 60 54
1991 55 52 58 50 52 61 62 63 58 56
■ Among males, drug offense cases 1992 55 53 57 52 51 61 62 62 60 56
adjudicated delinquent were most 1993 55 54 57 54 52 62 63 63 59 59
likely to be placed on probation 1994 54 53 56 53 51 61 63 62 61 58
(64%) in 2002, followed by property 1995 55 54 57 56 51 62 63 64 63 57
offense cases (62%) and person 1996 58 56 60 58 55 64 65 65 64 61
offense cases (61%). Public order 1997 59 59 61 61 55 66 69 68 68 60
offense cases were least likely to 1998 61 60 63 63 57 67 69 69 70 63
result in formal probation (56%). 1999 62 62 64 64 59 69 71 71 71 64
2000 61 60 62 63 57 66 68 68 67 62
2001 60 60 62 63 56 65 67 66 68 62
2002 61 61 62 64 56 65 69 66 67 60

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by race: Race

White Black
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the overall
Public Public
likelihood of being placed on formal
probation increased more for adjudi-
1985 55% 56% 56% 62% 49% 59% 56% 61% 63% 54% cated cases involving white youth
1986 55 56 56 60 48 57 55 59 56 54 (from 55% to 62%) than those involv-
1987 56 56 57 60 48 56 52 58 58 52
ing black youth (from 59% to 63%)
1988 55 55 57 58 48 55 52 58 55 53
or youth of other races (from 53% to
1989 56 56 58 58 49 56 53 59 52 53
54%).
1990 57 56 59 59 51 56 53 59 51 53
1991 57 55 59 54 51 55 52 59 48 55 ■ For adjudicated cases in which the
1992 56 56 58 56 51 56 54 59 50 55 most serious charge was a person
1993 57 58 59 58 53 55 54 57 50 55 offense, the use of probation among
1994 57 58 58 59 52 53 52 56 48 53 white youth increased from 56% in
1985 to 63% in 2002, for cases
1995 58 58 59 61 53 54 53 57 49 52
1996 61 60 62 64 57 55 55 59 51 53 involving black youth from 56% to
1997 62 62 64 67 57 57 58 60 53 54 64%, and for cases involving youth
1998 63 63 65 69 59 60 60 63 54 57 of other races from 49% to 55%.
1999 64 64 65 69 60 62 63 65 57 61
■ The use of probation for drug offense
2000 62 62 64 66 58 62 63 64 58 60 cases adjudicated delinquent
2001 62 63 63 66 57 61 62 64 57 59 increased 4 percentage points
2002 62 63 63 66 57 63 64 66 60 59 between 1985 and 2002 for white
youth and 3 percentage points for
Other race youth of other races, while declining
Public 3 percentage points for black youth.
1985 53% 49% 54% 62% 55% ■ In 2002, among white youth, drug
1986 53 54 53 60 53 offense cases that were adjudicated
1987 54 52 55 59 54 delinquent were most likely to be
1988 51 54 49 64 55 placed on formal probation (66%),
1989 53 49 53 64 53 followed by adjudicated person and
property offense cases (both 63%).
1990 56 55 55 55 57
1991 51 47 51 59 56
■ Among cases involving black youth
1992 47 46 48 58 43
in 2002, adjudicated property offense
1993 51 47 52 67 51
cases were most likely to be placed
1994 51 50 51 55 49
on formal probation (66%), followed
1995 55 55 54 60 54 by adjudicated person offense cases
1996 54 52 53 63 56 (64%) and cases where the most
1997 59 60 58 68 57 serious charge was a drug offense
1998 59 59 57 68 59 (60%).
1999 60 59 59 71 61
2000 56 56 54 66 56 ■ In 2002, for cases involving youth of
2001 53 53 52 63 52 other races, drug offense cases that
2002 54 55 54 65 51 were adjudicated delinquent were
most likely to be placed on formal
probation (65%), followed by adjudi-
cated person (55%) and property
offense cases (54%).
■ For all racial groups in 2002, cases

in which the most serious charge
was a public order offense were the
least likely to be placed on formal
probation.

Case Processing Overview, 2002
■ In 2002, 58% (934,900) of the esti- Placed

mated 1,615,400 juvenile court cases 1,615,400 estimated Waived 144,000 23%
delinquency cases 7,100 1%
were handled formally (with the filing Probation
of a petition). 385,400 62%
Adjudicated
■ In 2002, 1% (7,100) of all formally delinquent Other sanction
processed delinquency cases were 624,500 67% 85,000 14%
judicially transferred to criminal court. Released
10,000 2%
■ In 2002, 67% (624,500) of the cases Petitioned
that were handled formally (with the 934,900 58%
Probation
filing of a petition) resulted in a delin- 22,900 8%
quency adjudication. Not adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
■ In 62% of cases adjudicated delin- 303,300 32% 66,400 22%
quent in 2002, formal probation was
Dismissed
the most severe sanction ordered by 214,000 71%
the court.
Probation
■ Nearly one-quarter (23%) of cases 210,300 31%
adjudicated delinquent in 2002 result- Not petitioned Other sanction
ed in placement outside the home in 680,500 42% 206,900 30%
a residential facility.
Dismissed
■ In 14% of cases adjudicated delin- 263,400 39%
quent in 2002, the juvenile was
ordered to pay restitution or a fine, to
participate in some form of communi- Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
ty service, or to enter a treatment or through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
counseling program—dispositions
with minimal continuing supervision
by probation staff.
■ In about 2% of the formally handled

cases that were adjudicated delin-
quent in 2002, the juvenile was
released with no further sanction or
consequence.
■ In 32% (303,300) of all petitioned

delinquency cases in 2002, the youth
was not subsequently adjudicated
delinquent. The court dismissed 71%
of these cases, while 8% resulted in
some form of informal probation and
22% in other voluntary dispositions.
■ In 2002, the court dismissed 39% of

the informally handled delinquency
cases, while 31% of the cases result-
ed in voluntary probation and 30% in
other dispositions.

Case Processing Overview, 2002
A typical 1,000 4 Waived 89 Placed ■ For every 1,000 delinquency cases

delinquency cases processed in 2002, 579 were peti-
239 Probation
Adjudicated tioned for formal processing and 421
387 delinquent 53 Other sanction were handled informally.
579 Petitioned 6 Released ■ Of the cases that were adjudicated

delinquent, 62% (239 of 387)
14 Probation received a disposition of probation
Not adjudicated and 23% (89 of 387) were placed out
188 delinquent 41 Other sanction of the home.
132 Dismissed
■ In a small number of cases (6 of
130 Probation 1,000), the juvenile was adjudicated
delinquent but the court closed the
421 Not petitioned 128 Other sanction case with a stayed or suspended
163 Dismissed sentence, warned and released the
youth, or perhaps required the youth
to write an essay. In such cases, the
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not juvenile is not under any continuing
add to totals because of rounding. court supervision.
■ In many petitioned delinquency

cases that did not result in a delin-
quency adjudication, the youth
agreed to informal services or sanc-
tions (55 of 188), including informal
probation and other dispositions
such as restitution.
■ Although juvenile courts in 2002 han-

dled more than 4 in 10 delinquency
cases without the filing of a formal
petition, more than half of these
cases received some form of court
sanction, including probation or other
dispositions such as restitution, com-
munity service, or referral to another
agency.

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2002
Person Offense Cases Placed

Person offenses Waived 37,200 25%
■ In 2002, 62% (145,800) of all 387,500 2,900 1%
Probation
formally processed person offense 92,000 63%
cases resulted in a delinquency
adjudication. Adjudicated Other sanction
145,800 62% 13,800 9%
■ Formal probation was the most Released
severe sanction ordered by the court 2,800 2%
in 63% of the adjudicated person Petitioned
offense cases in 2002. 233,300 60%
Probation
7,000 8%
■ Once adjudicated, person offense
cases were more likely to result in Not adjudicated Other sanction
out-of-home placement (25%) than 84,600 36% 16,900 20%
were public order (24%), property Dismissed
(23%), or drug (18%) offense cases. 60,700 72%
■ In 2002, about one-third of person Probation

offense cases that were handled 47,300 31%
informally resulted in probation; 45% Not petitioned Other sanction
were dismissed. 154,200 40% 38,200 25%
Dismissed
68,700 45%
Placed
Property Offense Cases Property offenses Waived 52,700 23%
624,900 2,600 1%
Probation
■ Juvenile courts handled the majority 147,300 63%
(55%) of all property offense cases
formally in 2002. Of these formally Adjudicated Other sanction
handled cases, 233,600 (almost 7 in 233,600 68% 30,400 13%
10) were adjudicated delinquent. Released
3,200 1%
■ In 2002, 147,300 (63%) of the adjudi- Petitioned
cated property offense cases resulted 343,500 55%
in probation as the most severe sanc- Probation
9,300 9%
tion; another 23% (52,700) resulted
in out-of-home placement. Other Not adjudicated Other sanction
sanctions, such as restitution, com- 107,300 31% 23,400 22%
munity service, or referral to another Dismissed
agency, were ordered in 13% of the 74,600 70%
petitioned property offense cases
following adjudication, and about Probation
89,600 32%
3,200 (1%) were released.
Not petitioned Other sanction
■ Of the four general offense 281,400 45% 92,900 33%
categories, property offense cases
Dismissed
were least likely to be petitioned for 98,800 35%
formal processing. Once petitioned,
however, property offense cases
were more likely to result in the youth Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
being adjudicated delinquent than add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
were cases involving person offenses. through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2002
Placed Drug Offense Cases

Drug offenses Waived 14,400 18%
193,200 1,000 1% ■ In 2002, 68% (79,100) of all
Probation
50,900 64% petitioned drug offense cases result-
ed in the youth being adjudicated
Adjudicated Other sanction delinquent; 64% of these cases
79,100 68% 12,000 15%
received probation as the most
Released severe sanction and another 18%
1,700 2% resulted in out-of-home placement.
Petitioned
117,100 61% ■ Other sanctions, such as restitution,
Probation
3,700 10% community service, or referral to
another agency were ordered in 15%
Not adjudicated Other sanction (12,000) of the petitioned drug
37,100 32% 6,800 18%
offense cases following adjudication
Dismissed in 2002, and 2% were released.
26,600 72%
■ Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in
Probation 1% of all petitioned drug offense
26,100 34%
cases in 2002.
76,100 39% 25,900 34% ■ About 39% of drug offense cases
were informally handled in 2002;
Dismissed
24,000 32% 68% of the informally handled drug
offense cases resulted in probation
or some other sanction.
Placed
Public order offenses Waived 39,800 24% Public Order Offense Cases
409,800 600 <1%
Probation
95,200 57% ■ In 2002, the majority (59%) of all
public order offense cases were han-
Adjudicated Other sanction dled formally, with the filing of a peti-
166,000 69% 28,800 17% tion for adjudication.
Released
2,300 1% ■ Once adjudicated delinquent, 57% of
Petitioned public order offense cases in 2002
240,900 59% resulted in probation as the most
Probation severe sanction, 24% were placed
2,900 4%
out of home, and 17% resulted in
Not adjudicated Other sanction other sanctions.
74,300 31% 19,300 26%
■ In 2002, 41% of all public order
Dismissed
52,100 70% offense cases were handled informal-
ly. More than 40% of these cases
Probation were dismissed, while the remaining
47,200 28% cases resulted in some form of court
Not petitioned Other sanction sanction, including probation, restitu-
168,900 41% 49,800 29% tion, community service, or referral to
another agency.
Dismissed
71,900 43%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Case Processing by Age, 2002
■ In 2002, 55% (514,900) of all delin- Placed

quency cases involving youth age 15 Age 15 or younger Waived 75,600 22%
930,400 900 <1%
or younger and 61% (420,000) of Probation
cases involving youth age 16 or older 225,900 65%
were handled formally with the filing
of a petition. Adjudicated Other sanction
347,500 67% 40,900 12%
■ Cases involving youth age 15 or Released
younger were adjudicated delinquent 5,100 1%
in 67% of all formally processed Petitioned
cases in 2002; cases involving youth 514,900 55%
Probation
age 16 or older were adjudicated 13,200 8%
delinquent in 66% of all such cases.
Not adjudicated Other sanction
■ The proportion of petitioned cases 166,500 32% 35,500 21%
waived to criminal court in 2002 was Dismissed
less than half of 1% for youth age 15 117,700 71%
or younger, compared with more than
1% for youth age 16 or older. Probation
130,500 31%
■ In 2002, 22% of cases adjudicated Not petitioned Other sanction
delinquent involving youth age 15 or 415,500 45% 126,300 30%
younger and 25% of such cases
Dismissed
involving youth age 16 or older 158,700 38%
resulted in out-of-home placement.
■ Probation was ordered as the most

severe sanction in 2002 in 65% of
the adjudicated cases involving youth
age 15 or younger, compared with Placed
58% of adjudicated cases involving Age 16 or older Waived 68,500 25%
685,100 6,200 1%
youth 16 or older. Probation
159,500 58%
■ Among cases formally adjudicated in
2002 involving youth age 15 or Adjudicated Other sanction
younger, 12% resulted in other sanc- 277,000 66% 44,100 16%
tions and 1% were released. Released
4,900 2%
■ For cases involving youth age 16 or Petitioned
older in 2002, 16% of the formally 420,000 61%
Probation
adjudicated cases resulted in other 9,700 7%
sanctions and 2% were released.
Not adjudicated Other sanction
■ Of the 45% of all delinquency cases 136,800 33% 30,900 23%
involving youth age 15 or younger Dismissed
that were handled informally in 2002, 96,300 70%
31% resulted in a disposition of pro-
bation and 38% were dismissed. Probation
79,800 30%
Among older youth in 2002, 39% of
all delinquency cases were handled Not petitioned Other sanction
without the filing of a petition for 265,100 39% 80,600 30%
adjudication; 30% of these cases
Dismissed
resulted in a disposition of probation 104,600 39%
and 39% were dismissed.
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

Case Processing by Gender, 2002
Placed ■ In 2002, 61% of delinquency cases

Male Waived 119,900 25% involving males were handled with
1,192,300 6,600 1%
Probation the filing of a petition for adjudication,
297,200 61% compared with 50% of those involv-
ing females.
Adjudicated Other sanction
489,000 67% 63,900 13% ■ Once petitioned, cases involving
Released males in 2002 were somewhat more
8,100 2% likely to result in a delinquency adju-
Petitioned dication than were cases involving
724,700 61% females (67% vs. 64%).
Probation
17,500 8%
■ Delinquency cases involving females
Not adjudicated Other sanction in 2002 were less likely to be waived
229,100 32% 50,400 22% to criminal court than those involving
Dismissed males.
161,200 70%
■ Once adjudicated delinquent, 25% of
Probation cases involving males in 2002 result-
143,600 31% ed in out-of-home placement, com-
Not petitioned Other sanction pared with 18% of those involving
467,600 39% 137,400 29% females.
Dismissed ■ About 61% of the adjudicated cases
186,600 40%
involving males received probation as
the most severe sanction and 13%
resulted in other sanctions such as
restitution, or community service.
Placed ■ Among adjudicated cases involving

Female Waived 24,200 18% females in 2002, 65% received pro-
423,100 500 <1% bation as the most severe sanction
Probation
88,200 65% and 16% resulted in other sanctions.
Adjudicated Other sanction ■ Informally handled delinquency cases

135,400 64% 21,200 16% involving males were equally as likely
as those involving females to receive
Released
1,900 1% probation in 2002 (31%); male cases
Petitioned were more likely than female cases
210,100 50% to be dismissed (40% vs. 36%).
Probation
5,400 7%
■ In 2002, informally handled
Not adjudicated Other sanction delinquency cases involving females
74,200 35% 16,000 22% were more likely to result in other
sanctions than those involving males
Dismissed
52,800 71% (33% vs. 29%).
Probation
66,700 31%

213,000 50% 69,500 33%
Dismissed
76,800 36%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may

Case Processing by Race, 2002
■ In 2002, delinquency cases involving Placed

black youth were more likely to be White Waived 90,400 21%
handled formally (65%) than those 1,086,700 4,400 1%
Probation
involving white youth (55%) or youth 259,900 62%
of other races (58%).
■ Once petitioned, cases in 2002 421,400 71% 64,000 15%
involving black youth were less likely Released
to be adjudicated delinquent (58%) 7,100 2%
than were cases involving white Petitioned
youth (71%) or youth of other races 596,800 55%
Probation
(75%). 16,500 10%
■ For all racial groups in 2002, 1% of Not adjudicated Other sanction

delinquency cases resulted in waiver 171,000 29% 35,300 21%
to criminal court. Dismissed
119,200 70%
■ Among adjudicated delinquency
cases involving black youth in 2002, Probation
27% resulted in out-of-home place- 156,600 32%
ment, compared with 21% of such Not petitioned Other sanction
cases involving white youth and 25% 489,900 45% 151,700 31%
of those involving youth of other
Dismissed
races 181,600 37%
■ In 63% of the adjudicated cases
involving black youth in 2002, proba-
tion was the most severe sanction;
9% resulted in other sanctions such
as restitution, or community service. Placed
Black Waived 47,500 27%
■ For adjudicated cases involving white 473,100 2,500 1%
Probation
youth in 2002, probation was the 112,400 63%
most severe sanction ordered in 62%
of the cases and 15% resulted in Adjudicated Other sanction
other sanctions. 179,000 58% 16,300 9%
Released
■ In 2002, 45% of delinquency cases 2,700 2%
involving white youth were handled Petitioned
informally, compared with 35% of 306,000 65%
Probation
cases involving black youth and 42% 5,500 4%
of cases involving youth of other
races. Not adjudicated Other sanction
124,600 41% 29,900 24%
Dismissed
89,200 72%
Probation
47,900 29%

167,100 35% 48,100 29%
Dismissed
71,100 43%

Case Processing by Race, 2002
Placed ■ For adjudicated cases involving youth

Other races Waived 6,100 25% of other races in 2002, probation was
55,600 200 1%
Probation the most severe sanction ordered in
13,100 54% 54% of the cases and 25% resulted
in out-of-home placement.
24,100 75% 4,700 19%
■ In 2002, informally handled
Released delinquency cases involving black
200 1% youth were less likely (29%) than
Petitioned those involving white youth (32%) to
32,000 58%
Probation result in probation as a sanction and
800 11% more likely to result in probation than
those involving youth of other races
Not adjudicated Other sanction (24%).
7,700 24% 1,200 15%
Dismissed ■ Informally handled delinquency cases

5,700 74% involving black youth in 2002 were a
little more likely (43%) to be
Probation
5,700 24% dismissed than those involving white
youth (37%) and a little less likely to
Not petitioned Other sanction be dismissed than those involving
23,600 42% 7,100 30% youth of other races (46%).
Dismissed
10,800 46% ■ For all three racial groups in 2002,
informally handled delinquency cases
were nearly equally likely to result in
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not other sanctions such as restitution,
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 community service, or referral to
through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. another agency: 31% for cases
involving white youth, 29% for cases
involving black youth, and 30% for
cases involving youth of other races.

Case Processing by FBI Offense Category, 2002
Violent Crime Index Cases A typical 1,000 28 Waived 166 Placed

Violent Crime Index cases
■ In 2002, juvenile courts waived 28 of 277 Probation
every 1,000 Violent Crime Index 492 Adjudicated 37 Other sanction
offense cases to criminal court.
749 Petitioned 12 Released
■ Juvenile courts ordered formal sanc-
tions or waived jurisdiction in more 22 Probation
than half (508 of 1,000) of Violent
Crime Index offense cases handled 229 Not adjudicated 53 Other sanction
in 2002.
154 Dismissed
■ Cases involving juveniles adjudicated 48 Probation
delinquent for Violent Crime Index
offenses in 2002 were more likely to 251 Not petitioned 80 Other sanction
result in out-of-home placement (166 123 Dismissed
of 1,000) than were Property Crime
Index offense cases (92 of 1,000).
■ Cases that are not petitioned and

cases in which juveniles are not adju-
dicated delinquent may result in infor-
mal sanctions. Thus, juvenile courts
imposed some sort of sanction—
formal or informal—in nearly 71%
(710 of every 1,000) of the Violent
Crime Index offense cases handled
in 2002.
A typical 1,000 5 Waived 92 Placed
Property Crime Index cases
246 Probation
Property Crime Index Cases
387 Adjudicated 44 Other sanction
■ Juveniles received informal sanctions
in 36% (357 of every 1,000) of
Property Crime Index offense cases
processed in 2002. 15 Probation
■ Juvenile courts waived 5 of every 160 Not adjudicated 38 Other sanction

1,000 Property Crime Index offense 108 Dismissed
cases to criminal court in 2002.
145 Probation
■ Cases involving juveniles adjudicated
449 Not petitioned 159 Other sanction
delinquent for Property Crime Index
offenses were more likely to result in 144 Dismissed
probation (246 out of 387) than were
Violent Crime Index offense cases Notes: The Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravat-
(277 out of 492). ed assault. The Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft,
and arson. Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
■ More than 25% of all Property Crime not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
Index offenses referred to juvenile through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
courts in 2002 were ultimately dis-
missed/released (257 of 1,000)—
20% of the petitioned cases and 32%
of those not petitioned.

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2002
A typical 1,000 12 Waived 128 Placed Aggravated Assault Cases

aggravated assault cases
284 Probation
■ Juvenile courts waived 12 of every
462 Adjudicated 37 Other sanction 1,000 aggravated assault cases to
criminal court in 2002, compared with
690 Petitioned 12 Released 2 of every 1,000 simple assault
cases.
22 Probation
■ About 46% of aggravated assault
217 Not adjudicated 53 Other sanction cases received some formal sanction
142 Dismissed or were waived to criminal court (461
of 1,000).
67 Probation
■ In 2002, 13% of aggravated assault
310 Not petitioned 112 Other sanction cases received a formal sanction of
131 Dismissed out-of-home placement (128 of
1,000) and 28% were placed on for-
mal probation (284 of 1,000).
■ Of all aggravated assault cases

referred to juvenile courts in 2002,
29% were eventually released or dis-
missed (286 of 1,000)—22% of the
petitioned cases and 42% of those
that were informally handled.
A typical 1,000 2 Waived 74 Placed Simple Assault Cases

simple assault cases
219 Probation ■ Juveniles received informal sanctions
334 Adjudicated 36 Other sanction in 31% of simple assault offense
cases processed in 2002 (312 of
546 Petitioned 6 Released 1,000).
16 Probation ■ Of every 1,000 simple assault cases

handled in 2002, more than 300
211 Not adjudicated 41 Other sanction received some formal sanction or
were waived to criminal court.
153 Dismissed
143 Probation ■ In 2002, 7% of simple assault cases

resulted in the juvenile receiving a
454 Not petitioned 111 Other sanction formal sanction of out-of-home place-
199 Dismissed ment (74 of 1,000) and 22% were
placed on formal probation (219 of
1,000).
through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. ■ Of all simple assault cases referred
to juvenile courts in 2002, 36%
were eventually dismissed (357 of
1,000)—29% of the petitioned cases
and 44% of those that were informal-
ly handled.

Robbery Cases A typical 1,000 46 Waived 234 Placed

robbery cases
278 Probation
1,000 robbery cases to criminal court 552 Adjudicated 29 Other sanction
in 2002.
■ In 2002, juvenile courts ordered for-
mal sanctions or waived jurisdiction 25 Probation
in 59% of all robbery cases (587 of
1,000). 267 Not adjudicated 54 Other sanction
188 Dismissed
■ In 2002, 23% of robbery cases
received a formal sanction of out-of- 14 Probation
home placement (234 of 1,000) and
28% resulted in formal probation 135 Not petitioned 23 Other sanction
(278 of 1,000). 98 Dismissed
■ Of all robbery cases referred to juve-
nile court in 2002, 14% were not
petitioned; the majority (72%) of
these cases were dismissed.
Burglary Cases A typical 1,000 10 Waived 155 Placed

burglary cases
374 Probation
1,000 burglary cases to criminal 583 Adjudicated 43 Other sanction
court in 2002.
■ In 2002, 75% (583 of 778) of all peti-
tioned burglary cases resulted in the 19 Probation
youth being adjudicated delinquent.
186 Not adjudicated 45 Other sanction
■ Juvenile courts ordered formal sanc-
122 Dismissed
tions or waived jurisdiction in 75% of
all formally handled burglary cases in 58 Probation
2002.
222 Not petitioned 66 Other sanction
■ In 2002, 155 of 1,000 burglary cases
97 Dismissed
received a formal sanction of out-of-
home placement and 374 of 1,000
resulted in formal probation. Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
■ Less than one-quarter (22%) of all
burglary cases referred to juvenile
courts in 2002 were handled infor-
mally and less than half of these
cases (97 of 222) were dismissed.

A typical 1,000 8 Waived 193 Placed Motor Vehicle Theft Cases

motor vehicle theft cases
323 Probation
■ Juvenile courts waived less than 1%
558 Adjudicated 38 Other sanction of motor vehicle theft cases to crimi-
nal court in 2002 (8 of every 1,000).
■ In 2002, 56% of motor vehicle theft
15 Probation cases referred to juvenile courts
resulted in formal court sanctions or
220 Not adjudicated 56 Other sanction waiver to criminal court.
150 Dismissed
■ More than one-third of motor vehicle
49 Probation cases adjudicated delinquent in 2002
resulted in out-of-home placement
214 Not petitioned 47 Other sanction (193 of 558).
119 Dismissed
■ About one-fifth of motor vehicle theft
cases referred to juvenile courts in
2002 were handled without the filing
of a petition (214 of 1,000).
A typical 1,000 2 Waived 57 Placed Vandalism Cases

vandalism cases
219 Probation
335 Adjudicated 54 Other sanction 1,000 vandalism cases to criminal
court in 2002.
■ More than half of vandalism cases
17 Probation referred to juvenile courts in 2002
were handled formally (518 of 1,000).
181 Not adjudicated 32 Other sanction Of these cases, 65% were adjudicat-
132 Dismissed ed delinquent.
160 Probation ■ In 2002, 65% of petitioned vandalism

cases adjudicated delinquent resulted
482 Not petitioned 120 Other sanction in a court sanction of probation, and
202 Dismissed 17% resulted in out-of-home place-
ment.
■ Juvenile courts handled 482 of every
through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. 1,000 vandalism cases informally
(without a petition) in 2002. Youth
received informal sanctions in 58% of
these nonpetitioned cases.

Chapter 4
Profile of Petitioned Status

Offense Cases
Status offenses are acts that are ille- referred 43% of runaway cases that
gal only because the persons com- were formally handled in juvenile
mitting them are of juvenile status. court between 1985 and 2002 and
The four major status offense catego- just 11% of truancy and 16% of un-
ries used in this Report are running governability cases. Law enforce-
away, truancy, ungovernability (also ment agencies were more likely to be
known as incorrigibility or being the referral source for liquor law vio-
beyond the control of one’s parents), lations than for other status offense
and underage liquor law violations cases, referring 91% of such cases
(e.g., a minor in possession of alco- that were formally handled in juve-
hol, underage drinking). A number of nile court between 1985 and 2002.
other behaviors may be considered
status offenses (e.g., curfew viola- Juvenile courts may adjudicate peti-
tions, tobacco offenses). Because of tioned status offense cases and may
the heterogeneity of these miscella- order sanctions such as probation or
neous offenses, they are not discussed out-of-home placement. While their
independently in this Report but are cases are being processed, juveniles
included in discussions and displays charged with status offenses are
of petitioned status offense totals. sometimes held in secure detention.
(Note that the Juvenile Justice and
Agencies other than juvenile courts Delinquency Prevention Act discour-
are responsible for processing status ages secure detention of status
offense cases in many jurisdictions. offenders. States holding large num-
In some communities, for example, bers of status offenders in secure
family crisis units, county attorneys, detention risk losing a significant
and social service agencies have portion of their juvenile justice block
assumed this responsibility. When a grant awards.)
juvenile charged with a status offense
is referred to juvenile court, the court Because of variations in data collec-
may divert the juvenile away from tion and storage, the available data
the formal justice system to other cannot support national estimates of
agencies for service or may decide to the volume of petitioned status
process the juvenile formally with offense cases and trends in these
the filing of a petition. The analyses cases. Therefore, this chapter pre-
in this Report are limited to peti- sents a sample-based profile of cases
tioned cases. disposed between 1985 and 2002, in-
cluding demographic characteristics
The manner in which status offense of the juveniles involved, types of
cases come to the attention of the offenses charged, and the flow of
juvenile court varies by offense. For cases as they move through juvenile
example, law enforcement agencies court processing.

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Age
■ Overall, the volume of petitioned sta- Unlike the other status offense categories, the volume of petitioned
tus offense cases peaked at age 15. liquor law violation cases continued to increase with age
■ Youth age 15 or younger accounted
for 59% of formally processed status Percent of cases, 1985–2002
offense cases disposed by the courts. 30%
This included 66% of all runaway
cases, 72% of ungovernability cases, 25%
78% of truancy cases, and 26% of
liquor law violation cases. 20%
■ Age-specific patterns differed among All status offenses
the individual status offense 15%
categories. Among cases involving
runaway, truancy, and ungovernability 10%
offenses, the proportions of the case-
loads peaked at age 15 and 5%
decreased substantially by age 17.
■ For cases involving liquor law viola- 0%
tions, the proportion of the caseload 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
increased continuously with age. Age
Youth age 14 accounted for 7% of the
petitioned status offense caseload
involving liquor law violations, while
15-year-olds accounted for 16%, 16- Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002
year-olds accounted for 32%, and 17- 45%
year-olds comprised 42% of the ◆
40%
liquor law violation caseload. Liquor
35%
◆
30% ●
Truancy
25% ● Runaway
20%
◆ ●
15% ●
10%
● ◆ Ungovernability ●
5%
●
● ◆
0% ◆ ◆ ◆
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Data Table
Age Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
10 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%
11 1 1 3 3 0
12 4 4 6 7 0
13 10 11 14 14 2
14 18 21 24 22 7
15 25 29 30 26 16
16 24 25 16 20 32
17 18 9 7 8 42
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Gender and Race
The proportion of females was greatest in petitioned runaway cases ■ Males were involved in 58% of the
total petitioned status offense case-
load.
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002 ■ Males accounted for the large majori-
100%
ty (70%) of status liquor law violation
90% cases.
30%
80% ■ Females accounted for 61% of peti-
46% 46%
70% 58% 61% tioned runaway cases, the only sta-
60%
tus offense category In which
females represented a larger propor-
50% tion of the caseload than males.
40%
70% ■ Males represented a slight majority
30% of both petitioned truancy and
54% 54%
20% 42% 39% ungovernability cases (54% each).
10% ■ White youth represented 80% of the
0% population under juvenile court juris-
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor diction between 1985 and 2002.
During this period, they were
Male Female involved in 77% of all formally
processed status offense cases,
a proportion comparable to their
representation in the general juvenile
population.
■ While white youth were involved in
73% of both runaway and truancy
cases and 71% of ungovernability
cases, they represented 90% of the
petitioned liquor law violation case-
White juveniles accounted for the greatest proportion (90%) of
load.
petitioned status offense cases involving liquor law violations
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002

100% 4% 3% 4% 2% 6%
90% 4%
19% 24% 24% 27%
80%
70%
60%
50%
90%
40% 77% 73% 73% 71%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor
White Black Other

Detention
■ Youth age 15 or younger accounted Youth age 15 or younger accounted for more than two-thirds of
for 58% of the petitioned status runaway cases involving detention
offense cases that involved detention.
■ Cases involving youth age 16 or Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985–2002
older accounted for the large majority 100%
(72%) of liquor offense cases involv- 17%
90%
ing detention. 33% 29%
80% 42%
■ Cases involving youth age 15 or
70%
younger accounted for 83% of truan- 72%
cy cases, 71% of ungovernability 60%
cases, and 67% of runaway cases 50%
that involved detention. 83%
40%
67% 71%
30% 58%
Percentage of petitioned status 20%
offense cases detained: 28%
10%
0%
Most serious All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
offense 1985–2002
All status offenses 9% 15 or younger 16 or older
Runaway 16
Truancy 4
Ungovernability 10
Liquor 8
■ Between 1985 and 2002, formally

processed runaway cases were more
likely to involve detention than were
other status offense cases.
Percentage of petitioned status

offense cases detained by age,
1985–2002:
Most serious Age 15 Age 16

offense or younger or older
All status offenses 9% 9%
Runaway 17 16
Truancy 4 3
Ungovernability 10 10
Liquor 8 7
■ The likelihood of detention in formally

processed status offense cases was
similar between the two age groups
among the offense categories.

Detention
Females accounted for 58% of runaway cases involving detention ■ Males were involved in 59% of for-
mally processed status offense cases
Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985–2002 that involved detention.
100%
90% 23%
80% 41% 44% 46% offense cases detained by gender,
70% 58% 1985–2002:
60%
50% Most serious
offense Male Female
40% 77% All status offenses 9% 8%
30% 59% 56% Runaway 18 16
54%
20% 42% Truancy 4 3
Ungovernability 10 10
10% Liquor 8 6
0%
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor ■ The likelihood of detention in formally
processed status offense cases var-
Male Female ied little between males and females
among the offense categories.

offense cases detained by race,
1985–2002:
Most serious Other

offense White Black races
The greater proportion of white youth in detained status offense
All status offenses 8% 10% 9%
cases was most evident in liquor law violation cases
Runaway 17 16 17
Truancy 3 4 4
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002 Ungovernability 10 10 11
100% 4% 3% 4% 2% Liquor 7 14 7
6%
90% 8%
23% 23% 27% ■ Youth in all racial groups were more
80% 29%
likely to be detained for runaway
70% cases than other case types.
60% ■ Even though the petitioned status
50% offense caseload of white youth and
87% youth of other races contained a
40%
73% 73% 71% greater proportion of liquor law viola-
67%
30% tions than that of black youth, status
20% liquor law violation cases involving
10% black juveniles were more likely to
involve detention (14%) than cases
0% involving white youth (7%) or youth of
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor
other races (7%).
White Black Other

Adjudication
Age Across demographic categories, the majority of petitioned status

offense cases were adjudicated
■ Overall, the likelihood of adjudication
in petitioned status offense cases Percentage of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 1985–2002
was greater for younger juveniles. 70%
65%
■ Within each of the four major status 61% 61% 61%
59% 58%
60% 55%
offense categories, petitioned status
offense cases involving younger juve-
50%
niles were more likely to result in the
youth being adjudicated a status 40%
offender than those involving older
juveniles. 30%
■ For both age groups, petitioned run-
away cases were least likely to result 20%
in the youth being adjudicated a sta-
10%
tus offender.
0%
Gender 15 or 16 or Male Female White Black Other
younger older races
■ Formally handled status cases
involving males were more likely to
be adjudicated than were those
involving females (61% vs. 58%).
■ The likelihood of adjudication for
males and females differed only
slightly within each of the four major
status offense categories. With the exception of runaway cases, most petitioned status offense
cases resulted in the youth being adjudicated as a status offender
Race
Percentage of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 1985–2002:
■ Overall, adjudication was more likely Most serious offense
for petitioned cases involving youth of Demographic Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
other races (65%) than for cases
involving white youth (61%) and All 60% 46% 63% 63% 63%
black youth (55%).
Age
■ For petitioned status offense cases 15 or younger 61 48 63 64 66
involving liquor law violations, the 16 or older 59 42 61 60 62
proportion in which the youth was
adjudicated a status offender was Gender
higher for youth of other races (71%) Male 61 47 63 63 64
and white youth (63%) than for black Female 58 45 63 62 61
youth (52%).
Race
White 61 46 63 64 63
Black 55 44 63 57 52
Other races 65 52 66 72 71

Disposition
Probation was the most common disposition for adjudicated status ■ Among adjudicated status offense
offense cases cases, runaway and ungovernability
cases were most likely to result in
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home place- out-of-home placement; truancy
ment, 1985–2002: cases had the greatest likelihood of
Most serious offense resulting in a disposition of probation.
Demographic Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
Age
All 15% 27% 11% 26% 8%
■ Once adjudicated, status offense
Age cases involving younger juveniles
15 or younger 17 27 12 26 9
were somewhat more likely to result
16 or older 12 26 8 24 7
in out-of-home placement than were
Gender
cases involving older juveniles.
Male 15 29 11 26 9 ■ For both age groups, larger propor-
Female 15 25 10 25 5 tions of adjudicated runaway and
ungovernability cases resulted in out-
Race of-home placement than cases that
White 14 26 11 26 7
involved truancy and liquor offenses.
Black 20 29 11 23 15
Other races 14 21 13 26 10
Gender
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in probation, 1985–2000: ■ Once adjudicated, runaway cases
Most serious offense involving males were more likely than
Demographic Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
those involving females to be
ordered to out-of-home placement
All 62% 61% 78% 66% 57% (29% vs. 25%) and less likely to
result in a formal probation order
Age (58% vs. 64%).
15 or younger 65 62 78 65 61
16 or older 57 60 77 67 56
Race
Gender
Male 60 58 77 66 57 ■ Adjudicated ungovernable cases
Female 59 64 79 66 59 involving black youth were much
more likely to result in formal proba-
Race tion (72%) than cases involving white
White 60 61 76 64 57 youth (64%) or youth of other races
Black 70 62 82 72 65 (65%); adjudicated ungovernable
Other races 61 71 79 65 55 cases involving black youth were less
likely to result in out-of-home place-
ment (23%) than cases involving
Note: In addition to out-of-home placement and probation, possible dispositions for adjudicat- white youth and youth of other races
ed status offense cases include other sanctions (e.g., fines) and release. (26% for both).
■ Adjudicated runaway cases involving
black youth were more likely to result
in out-of-home placement (29%) than
were cases involving white youth
(26%) or youth of other races (21%).
A similar pattern held true for adjudi-
cated liquor law violation cases.

Case Processing, 1985–2002
122 Placed
Runaway Cases Runaway 282 Probation
Adjudicated a
459 status offender 37 Other sanction
■ For every 1,000 petitioned runaway A typical 1,000 petitioned
cases, 282 resulted in formal proba- runaway cases 18 Released
tion following adjudication and 122
were placed out of the home. Not adjudicated 150 Informal sanction
■ Among petitioned runaway cases, 541 a status offender
391 Dismissed
youth were not adjudicated a status
offender in 541 of a typical 1,000
cases. Of these 541 cases, most
were dismissed (72%).
68 Placed
Truancy Cases Truancy 488 Probation
Adjudicated a
■ Of a typical 1,000 formal truancy A typical 1,000 petitioned
cases, 488 resulted in formal proba- truancy cases 12 Released
tion and 68 were placed out of the
home.
Not adjudicated 74 Informal sanction
■ Among petitioned truancy cases, 371 a status offender
298 Dismissed
youth were not adjudicated a status
offender in 371 of a typical 1,000
cases. Of these 371 cases, 80%
were dismissed (298).
160 Placed
Ungovernability Cases Ungovernability 412 Probation
Adjudicated a
■ Among the four major status offense A typical 1,000 petitioned
categories, juvenile courts were most ungovernability cases 13 Released
likely to order youth to out-of-home
placement in petitioned ungovernabil-
Not adjudicated 67 Informal sanction
ity cases (160 of 1,000 cases), but 375 a status offender
formal probation was a more likely 307 Dismissed
outcome (412 of 1,000).
Liquor Law Violation Cases

49 Placed
■ Among petitioned liquor law violation
cases, the most likely outcome was Liquor law violation 362 Probation
formal probation (362 of 1,000); out- Adjudicated a
of-home placement was ordered in A typical 1,000 petitioned
49 of a typical 1,000 cases. liquor law violation cases 10 Released
■ Among petitioned liquor law violation
cases, youth were not adjudicated as Not adjudicated 168 Informal sanction
status offenders in 370 of a typical 370 a status offender
202 Dismissed
1,000 cases; 45% (168) of these
cases resulted in some form of infor-
mal sanctions and 55% (202) were Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
dismissed. add to totals because of rounding.

Appendix A
Methods
The Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) tics of each delinquency and status
series uses data provided to the offense case handled by courts, gen-
National Juvenile Court Data Archive erally including the age, gender, and
(the Archive) by state and county race of the youth referred; the date
agencies responsible for collecting and source of referral; the offenses
and/or disseminating information on charged; detention and petitioning
the processing of youth in juvenile decisions; and the date and type of
courts. These data are not the result disposition.
of a uniform data collection effort.
They are not derived from a complete The structure of each data set con-
census of juvenile courts or obtained tributed to the Archive is unique,
from a probability sample of courts. having been designed to meet the in-
The national estimates presented in formation needs of a particular juris-
this Report are developed by using diction. Archive staff study the struc-
compatible information from all ture and content of each data set in
courts that are able to provide data order to design an automated restruc-
to the Archive. turing procedure that will transform
each jurisdiction’s data into a com-
Sources of Data mon case-level format.
The Archive collects data in two The aggregation of these standard-

forms: court-level aggregate statistics ized case-level data files constitutes
and detailed case-level data. Court- the Archive’s national case-level data-
level aggregate statistics either are base. The compiled data from juris-
abstracted from the annual reports of dictions that contribute only court-
state and local courts or are contrib- level statistics constitute the national
uted directly to the Archive. Court- court-level database. Together, these
level statistics typically provide two multijurisdictional databases are
counts of the delinquency and status used to generate the Archive’s nation-
offense cases handled by courts in a al estimates of delinquency cases and
defined time period (calendar or fis- to provide the sample of petitioned
cal year). status offense cases.
Case-level data are usually generated Each year, many juvenile courts con-
by automated client-tracking systems tribute either case-level data or court-
or case-reporting systems managed level aggregate statistics to the
by juvenile courts or other juvenile Archive. However, not all of this infor-
justice agencies. These systems pro- mation can be used to generate the
vide detailed data on the characteris- national estimates contained in JCS.

Appendix A: Methods
Table A–1: 2002 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency Data

Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties
seC
io
u
n
tN
u
o
m
fb
re
County population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of
Stratum ages 10–17 in stratum level level Total* juvenile population
1 Fewer than 12,575 2,595 1,602 177 1,779 69%
2 12,575–53,250 353 198 35 233 69
3 53,251–133,700 104 61 8 69 70
4 More than 133,700 32 23 7 29 94
Total 3,084 1,884 227 2,110 75
* Some counties reported both case-level and court-level data; therefore, the total number of counties reporting delinquency data is not equal
to the number of counties reporting case-level data plus the number of counties reporting court-level data.
Table A–2: 2002 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense Data

Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties
seC
io
u
n
tN
u
o
m
fb
re
County population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of
Stratum ages 10–17 in stratum level level Total juvenile population
1 Fewer than 12,575 2,595 1,600 272 1,872 72%
2 12,575–53,250 353 188 39 227 66
3 53,251–133,700 104 52 8 60 62
4 More than 133,700 32 23 6 29 94
Total 3,084 1,863 325 2,188 73
To be used in the development of Wisconsin. These courts had jurisdic- Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
national estimates, the data must be tion over 66% of the nation’s juvenile West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These
in a compatible unit of count (i.e., population in 2002. Compatible court- courts had jurisdiction over 63% of
case disposed), the data source must level aggregate statistics on an addi- the juvenile population. An additional
demonstrate a pattern of consistent tional 69,633 delinquency cases from 325 jurisdictions in 6 states (Califor-
reporting over time (at least 2 years), 227 jurisdictions were reported from nia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New York,
and the data file contributed to the the states of California, Idaho, Illinois, and Vermont) reported compatible
Archive must represent a complete Indiana, New York, and Vermont. In court-level aggregate statistics on
count of delinquency and/or status all, the Archive received compatible 14,665 petitioned status offense cas-
offense cases disposed in a jurisdic- case-level data and court-level statis- es. Altogether, compatible case-level
tion during a given year. tics on delinquency cases from 2,110 and court-level data on petitioned
jurisdictions containing 75% of the status offense cases were available
In 2002, case-level data describing Nation’s juvenile population in 2002 from 2,188 jurisdictions containing
1,047,793 delinquency cases handled (table A–1). 73% of the U.S. juvenile population in
by 1,884 jurisdictions in 35 states met 2002 (table A–2). Additionally, peti-
the Archive’s criteria for inclusion in Case-level data describing 101,812 tioned status offense case profiles in
the development of national esti- formally handled status offense cases the Report include case-level data
mates. Compatible data were avail- from 1,863 jurisdictions in 34 states describing 1,146,308 cases and court-
able from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, met the criteria for inclusion in the level aggregate data describing
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, sample for 2002. The contributing 114,527 cases for the years 1985
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, through 2001.
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, A list of states contributing case-level
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, data (either delinquency or petitioned
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, status offense data), the variables
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Penn- Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, each reports, and the percentage of
sylvania, South Carolina, South Dako- Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, cases containing each variable are
ta, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South presented in Table A–3.
Washington, West Virginia, and Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Appendix A: Methods
Juvenile Population that generate the juvenile court refer- set at 10 years for all jurisdictions.
rals in each jurisdiction—i.e., the “ju- On the other hand, the upper age
The volume and characteristics of juvenile” population of every U.S. county. limit varies by state. Every state de-
venile court caseloads are partly a fines an upper age limit for youth
function of the size and demographic A survey of the Archive’s case-level who will come under the jurisdiction
composition of a jurisdiction’s popu- data shows that very few delinquency of the juvenile court if they commit
lation. Therefore, a critical element in or status offense cases involve youth an illegal act. (See “upper age of juris-
the Archive’s development of national younger than 10. Therefore, the lower diction” in the “Glossary of Terms”
estimates is the population of youth age limit of the juvenile population is section.) Most states define this age
Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 2002
Age at Referral Referral Secure Manner of

Data source referral Gender Race source reason detention handling Adjudication Disposition
Alabama AL AL AL – AL AL AL AL AL
Alaska AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK
Arizona AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ
Arkansas AR AR AR – AR – AR AR AR
California CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
Connecticut CT CT CT CT CT – CT CT CT
District of Columbia DC DC DC DC DC – DC DC DC
Florida FL FL FL – FL – FL FL FL
Georgia GA GA GA GA GA – GA GA GA
Hawaii HI HI – HI HI – HI HI HI
Illinois1 IL IL – IL IL IL IL IL IL
Indiana2 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN
Kentucky KY KY KY – KY – KY – –
Maryland MD MD MD MD MD – MD MD MD
Minnesota MN MN MN MN MN – MN MN MN
Mississippi MS MS MS MS MS – MS MS MS
Missouri MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO
Montana MT MT MT MT MT – MT MT MT
Nebraska NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Nevada NV NV NV – NV NV NV NV NV
New Jersey NJ NJ NJ – NJ – NJ NJ NJ
New Mexico NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
North Dakota ND ND ND – ND – ND ND ND
Ohio3 OH OH OH – OH OH OH OH OH
Oklahoma OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Pennsylvania PA PA PA PA PA – PA PA PA
South Carolina SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC
South Dakota SD SD SD – SD SD SD SD SD
Tennessee TN TN TN TN TN – TN TN TN
Texas TX TX TX TX TX – TX TX TX
Utah UT UT UT UT UT – UT UT UT
Virginia VA VA VA VA VA VA VA – VA
Washington WA WA WA WA WA – WA WA WA
West Virginia WV WV WV WV WV WV WV – WV
Wisconsin WI WI WI – WI – WI WI WI
Percentage of
estimation sample 99% 100% 95% 69% 97% 38% 100% 92% 96%
Note: The symbol “–” indicates that compatible data for this variable are not reported by this state.
1 Data from Cook County only.
2 Data from Marion County only.
3 Data from Cuyahoga County only.

Appendix A: Methods
to be 17 years, although some states The estimates, separated into single- race profile of the youth involved in
have set the age at 15 or 16. States of- year age groups, reflect the number juvenile court cases.
ten enact exceptions to this simple of whites, blacks, and individuals of
age criterion (e.g., youthful offender other races2 who reside in each coun- The basic assumption underlying the
legislation and concurrent jurisdic- ty in the Nation and who are between estimation procedure is that similar
tion or extended jurisdiction provi- the ages of 10 and the upper age of legal and demographic factors shape
sions). In general, however, juvenile original juvenile court jurisdiction. the volume and characteristics of
courts have responsibility for all law cases in reporting and nonreporting
violations committed by youth at or Estimation Procedure counties of comparable size and fea-
below the upper age of original tures. The estimation procedure de-
jurisdiction. National estimates are developed by velops independent estimates for the
using the national case-level data- number of petitioned delinquency
For the purposes of this Report, base, the national court-level data- cases and the number of nonpetitioned
therefore, the juvenile population is base, and the Archive’s juvenile popu- delinquency cases handled by juve-
defined as the number of youth living lation estimates for every U.S. county. nile courts nationwide. Identical pro-
in a jurisdiction who are at least 10 “County” was selected as the unit of cedures are used to develop all case
years old but who are not older than aggregation because (1) most juvenile estimates.
the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdictions in the United
court jurisdiction. For example, in States are concurrent with county The first step in the estimation proce-
New York, where the upper age of ju- boundaries, (2) most data contributed dure is to place all U.S. counties into
venile court jurisdiction is 15, the ju- by juvenile courts include the county one of four strata based on the popu-
venile population is the number of in which the case was handled, and lation of youth between the ages of
youth residing in a county who are (3) youth population estimates can 10 and 17. The lower and upper popu-
between the ages of 10 and 15. be developed at the county level.3 lation limits of the four strata are de-
fined each year so that each stratum
The juvenile population estimates The Archive’s national estimates are contains one-quarter of the national
used in this Report were developed generated by analyzing the data ob- population of youth between the ages
with data from the Census Bureau.1 tained from its nonprobability sample of 10 and 17. In each of the four stra-
of juvenile courts and then weighting ta, the Archive determines the num-
those cases to represent the number ber of juveniles in three age groups:
1 County-level intercensal estimates were
of cases handled by juvenile courts 10- through 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds,
obtained for the years 1985–2002. The fol-
lowing data files were used: nationwide. The Archive employs an and 17-year-olds. The three age
elaborate multivariate weighting pro- groups are further subdivided into
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. 1980–1989 cedure that adjusts for a number of three racial groups: white, black, and
Preliminary Estimates of the Population of other. Thus, juvenile population esti-
factors related to juvenile court case-
Counties by Age, Sex, and Race [machine- mates are developed for nine age-by-
readable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. loads: the court’s jurisdictional re-
Census Bureau. sponsibilities (upper age); the size race categories in each stratum of
and demographic composition of the counties.
National Center for Health Statistics. 2005. community; and the age, gender, and
Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July The next step is to identify within
1, 1990–July 1, 1999 United States Resident each stratum the jurisdictions that
Population by County, Single-year of Age, Sex, 2 “Other races” are Asians, American Indi-
Race, and Hispanic Origin [machine-readable
contributed to the Archive case-level
data file]. Prepared by the U.S. Census ans, and Pacific Islanders. Most individuals data consistent with JCS reporting re-
Bureau with support from the National of Hispanic ancestry are coded as white. quirements. The national case-level
Cancer Institute. Available online: database is summarized to determine
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/ 3 The only information used in this Report
within each stratum the number of
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on that cannot be aggregated by county is data
court cases that involved youth in
7/26/2004]. contributed by the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, which identifies only the each of the nine age/race population
National Center for Health Statistics. 2004. district in which each case is handled. To groups. Case rates (number of cases
Estimates of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2003 use the Florida data, the aggregation criteri- per 1,000 juveniles in the population)
United States Resident Population from the on is relaxed to include districts. In 2000, are developed for the nine age/race
Vintage 2003 Postcensal Series by Year, there were 3,140 counties in the United groups within each of the four strata.
County, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin States. By replacing Florida’s counties with
[machine-readable data file]. Prepared under districts, the total number of aggregation
a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. units for this Report becomes 3,084. There- For example, assume that a total of
Census Bureau. Available online: fore, while the Report uses the term “coun- 2,870,000 white youth between the
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/ ty” to describe its aggregation unit, the read- ages of 10 and 15 resided in the stra-
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on er should be aware of the exception made for
tum 2 counties that reported case-level
9/14/2004]. Florida’s data.

Appendix A: Methods
data to the Archive. If the Archive’s The jurisdiction’s total caseload of 41,254 petitioned delinquency cases
case-level database shows that the 600 would then be allocated based on involving white 16-year-olds from
juvenile courts in these counties han- these proportions. In this example, stratum 2 counties. Assume also that
dled 50,523 petitioned delinquency 42% of all cases reported in the juris- the national case-level database for
cases involving white youth between diction’s aggregate statistics involved that year contained 25,758 petitioned
the ages of 10 and 15, the number of white youth, 51% involved black delinquency cases involving white 16-
cases per 1,000 white youth ages 10 youth, and the remaining 7% involved year-olds from stratum 2 counties. In
to 15 for stratum 2 would be 17.6, or: youth of other races. When these pro- the Archive’s national estimation da-
portions are applied to a reported ag- tabase, each stratum 2 petitioned de-
(50,523/2,870,000) x 1,000 = 17.6
gregate statistic of 600 cases, this ju- linquency case that involved a white
risdiction is estimated to have 16-year-old would be weighted by 1.60,
Comparable analyses are then used handled 252 cases involving white because:
to establish the stratum 2 case rates youth, 306 cases involving black
for black youth and youth of other 41,254/25,758 = 1.60
youth, and 42 cases involving youth
races in the same age group (50.7 and of other races age 15 or younger. The
16.2, respectively). same method is used to develop case The final step in the estimation proce-
counts for all nine age/race groups for dure is to impute missing data on in-
Next, information contained in the na- each jurisdiction reporting only aggre- dividual case records. Table A–3 indi-
tional court-level database is intro- gate court-level statistics. cates the standardized data elements
duced, and case rates are adjusted that were available from each juris-
accordingly. First, each court-level diction’s 2002 data set. The proce-
The disaggregated court-level counts
statistic is disaggregated into the nine dures to adjust for missing data as-
are added to the counts developed
age/race groups. This separation is sume that case records with missing
from case-level data to produce an es-
accomplished by assuming that, for data are similar in structure to those
timate of the number of cases involv-
each jurisdiction, the relationships without missing data. For example,
ing each of the nine age/race groups
among the stratum’s nine age/race assume that among cases from a par-
handled by reporting courts in each
case rates (developed from the case- ticular stratum, detention information
of the four strata. The juvenile popu-
level data) are paralleled in the aggre- was missing on 100 cases involving
lation figures for the entire sample are
gate statistic. 16-year-old white males who were pe-
also compiled. Together, the case
titioned to court, adjudicated for a
counts and the juvenile population
For example, assume that a jurisdic- property offense, and then placed on
figures are used to generate a revised
tion in stratum 2 with an upper age of probation. If similar cases from the
set of case rates for each of the nine
15 processed 600 cases during the same stratum showed that 20% of
age/race groups within the four strata.
year and that this jurisdiction had a these cases involved detention, then
juvenile population of 12,000 white it would be assumed that 20% of the
Stratum estimates for the total num-
youth, 5,000 black youth, and 2,000 100 cases missing detention informa-
ber of cases involving each age/race
youth of other races. The stratum 2 tion also involved detention. Thus,
group are then calculated by multiply-
case rates for each racial group in the missing data are imputed within each
ing the revised case rate for each of
10–15 age group would be multiplied stratum by reviewing the characteris-
the nine age/race groups in a stratum
by the corresponding population to tics of cases with similar case attri-
by the corresponding juvenile popula-
develop estimates of the proportion butes (i.e., the age, gender, and race
tion in all counties belonging to
of the court’s caseload that came of the youth; the offense charged; and
that stratum (both reporting and
from each age/race group, as follows: the court’s decisions on detention,
nonreporting).
petition, adjudication, and
White: disposition).
After the national estimate for the
(17.6 x 12,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + total number of cases in each
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.42 More detailed information about the
age/race group in each stratum has
Archive’s national estimation method-
been calculated, the next step is to
Black: ology is available on request from the
generate estimates of their case char-
(50.7 x 5,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + National Center for Juvenile Justice.
acteristics. This estimate is accom-
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.51 plished by weighting the individual
case-level records stored in the
Other: Archive’s national case-level data-
(16.2 x 2,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + base. For example, assume that the
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.07 Archive generates an estimate of

Appendix B
Glossary of Terms
Adjudication: Judicial determination from death, absence, or physical or

(judgment) that a juvenile is or is not mental incapacity of parents.
responsible for the delinquency or
status offense charged in a petition. Detention: The placement of a youth
in a secure facility under court au-
Age: Age at the time of referral to ju- thority at some point between the
venile court. time of referral to court intake and
case disposition. This Report does
Case rate: Number of cases disposed not include detention decisions made
per 1,000 juveniles in the population. by law enforcement officials prior to
The population base used to calcu- court referral or those occurring after
late the case rate varies. For example, the disposition of a case.
the population base for the male case
rate is the total number of male Disposition: Sanction ordered or
youth age 10 or older under the juris- treatment plan decided on or initiat-
diction of the juvenile courts. (See ed in a particular case. Case disposi-
“juvenile population.”) tions are coded into the following
categories:
Delinquency: Acts or conduct in vio-
lation of criminal law. (See “reason for ■ Waived to criminal court—Cases
referral.”) that were transferred to criminal
court as the result of a judicial
Delinquent act: An act committed by waiver hearing in juvenile court.
a juvenile which, if committed by an
■ Placement—Cases in which youth
adult, would be a criminal act. The ju-
were placed in a residential facili-
venile court has jurisdiction over de-
ty for delinquents or status offend-
linquent acts. Delinquent acts include
ers or cases in which youth were
crimes against persons, crimes
otherwise removed from their
against property, drug offenses, and
homes and placed elsewhere.
crimes against public order.
■ Probation—Cases in which youth
Dependency case: Those cases in- were placed on informal/voluntary
volving neglect or inadequate care on or formal/court-ordered supervision.
the part of parents or guardians, such
■ Dismissed/released—Cases dis-
as abandonment or desertion; abuse
missed or otherwise released
or cruel treatment; improper or inad-
(including those warned and
equate conditions in the home; and
counseled) with no further sanc-
insufficient care or support resulting
tion or consequence anticipated.

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Among cases handled informally dependency matters, it is defined as Europe, North Africa, or the Mid-
(see “manner of handling”), some the number of children at or below dle East. (In both the population
cases may be dismissed by the ju- the upper age of jurisdiction. In all and court data, nearly all youth of
venile court because the matter is states, the upper age of jurisdiction is Hispanic ethnicity were included
being handled in another court or defined by statute. Thus, when the in the white racial category.)
agency. upper age of jurisdiction is 17, the de-
■ Black—A person having origins in
linquency and status offense juvenile
■ Other—Miscellaneous disposi- any of the black racial groups of
population is equal to the number of
tions not included above. These Africa.
children ages 10 through 17 living
dispositions include fines, restitu-
within the geographical area serviced ■ Other race—A person having ori-
tion, community service, referrals
by the court. (See “upper age of gins in any of the indigenous peo-
outside the court for services or
jurisdiction.”) ples of North America, the Far
treatment programs with minimal
East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
or no further court involvement
Manner of handling: A general classi- Subcontinent, or the Pacific
anticipated, and dispositions
fication of case processing within the Islands.
coded as “other” in a jurisdiction’s
court system. Petitioned (formally
original data. Reason for referral: The most seri-
handled) cases are those that appear
ous offense for which the youth is re-
on the official court calendar in re-
Formal handling: See “manner of ferred to court intake. Attempts to
sponse to the filing of a petition, com-
handling.” commit an offense are included under
plaint, or other legal instrument re-
that offense, except attempted mur-
questing the court to adjudicate a
Informal handling: See “manner of der, which is included in the aggravat-
youth as a delinquent, status offend-
handling.” ed assault category.
er, or dependent child or to waive ju-
risdiction and transfer a youth to
Intake decision: The decision made ■ Crimes against persons—Includes
criminal court for processing as a
by juvenile court intake that results criminal homicide, forcible rape,
criminal offender. In nonpetitioned
in the case either being handled infor- robbery, aggravated assault, sim-
(informally handled) cases, duly au-
mally at the intake level or being peti- ple assault, and other person of-
thorized court personnel, having
tioned and scheduled for an adjudica- fenses as defined below.
screened the case, decide not to file a
tory or transfer hearing. formal petition. Such personnel in-
◆ Criminal homicide—Causing
clude judges, referees, probation of-
Judicial decision: The decision made ficers, other officers of the court, the death of another person
in response to a petition that asks the and/or agencies statutorily designat- without legal justification or
court to adjudicate or transfer the ed to conduct petition screening for excuse. Criminal homicide is a
youth. This decision is generally the juvenile court. summary category, not a single
made by a juvenile court judge or codified offense. In law, the
referee. term embraces all homicides in
Nonpetitioned case: See “manner of
which the perpetrator inten-
handling.”
Judicial disposition: The disposition tionally kills someone without
rendered in a case after the judicial legal justification or accidental-
Petition: A document filed in juvenile
decision has been made. ly kills someone as a conse-
court alleging that a juvenile is a de-
quence of reckless or grossly
linquent or a status offender and ask-
Juvenile: Youth at or below the up- negligent conduct. It includes
ing that the court assume jurisdiction
per age of original juvenile court ju- all conduct encompassed by
over the juvenile or that an alleged
risdiction. (See “juvenile population” the terms murder, nonnegli-
delinquent be transferred to criminal
and “upper age of jurisdiction.”) gent (voluntary) manslaughter,
court for prosecution as an adult.
negligent (involuntary) man-
Juvenile court: Any court that has ju- slaughter, and vehicular
Petitioned case: See “manner of
risdiction over matters involving manslaughter. The term is
handling.”
juveniles. broader than the Crime Index
category used in the Federal
Race: The race of the youth referred, Bureau of Investigation’s
Juvenile population: For delinquency as determined by the youth or by
and status offense matters, the juve- (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reports
court personnel. (UCR), in which murder/
nile population is defined as the num-
ber of children between the age of 10 nonnegligent manslaughter
■ White—A person having origins in does not include negligent
and the upper age of jurisdiction. For any of the indigenous peoples of

manslaughter or vehicular ❖ Simple assault—Unlawful ◆ Motor vehicle theft—Unlawful

manslaughter. intentional infliction or at- taking or attempted taking of a
tempted or threatened in- self-propelled road vehicle
◆ Forcible rape—Sexual inter-
fliction of less than serious owned by another with the in-
course or attempted sexual in-
bodily injury without a tent to deprive the owner of it
tercourse with a female against
deadly or dangerous weap- permanently or temporarily.
her will by force or threat of
on. The term is used in the The term is used in the same
force. The term is used in the
same sense as in UCR sense as in the UCR Crime In-
same sense as in the UCR
reporting. Simple assault is dex. It includes joyriding or un-
Crime Index. Some states have
not often distinctly named authorized use of a motor vehi-
enacted gender-neutral rape or
in statutes because it en- cle as well as grand theft auto.
sexual assault statutes that
compasses all assaults not
prohibit forced sexual penetra- ◆ Arson—Intentional damage or
explicitly named and de-
tion of either sex. Data report- destruction by means of fire or
fined as serious. Unspeci-
ed by such states do not dis- explosion of the property of
fied assaults are classified
tinguish between forcible rape another without the owner’s
as “other offenses against
of females as defined above consent or of any property
persons.”
and other sexual assaults. with intent to defraud, or at-
(Other violent sex offenses are ◆ Other offenses against tempting the above acts. The
classified as “other offenses persons—Includes kidnapping, term is used in the same sense
against persons.”) violent sex acts other than as in the UCR Crime Index.
forcible rape (e.g., incest, sod-
◆ Robbery—Unlawful taking or ◆ Vandalism—Destroying, dam-
omy), custody interference,
attempted taking of property aging, or attempting to destroy
unlawful restraint, false impris-
that is in the immediate pos- or damage public property or
onment, reckless endanger-
session of another by force or the property of another with-
ment, harassment, and attempts
threat of force. The term is out the owner’s consent, ex-
to commit any such acts.
used in the same sense as in cept by burning.
the UCR Crime Index and in- ■ Crimes against property—
◆ Stolen property offenses—
cludes forcible purse snatching. Includes burglary, larceny, motor
Unlawfully and knowingly re-
vehicle theft, arson, vandalism,
◆ Assault—Unlawful intentional ceiving, buying, or possessing
stolen property offenses, trespass-
infliction, or attempted or stolen property or attempting
ing, and other property offenses
threatened infliction, of injury any of the above. The term is
as defined below.
upon the person of another. used in the same sense as the
◆ Burglary—Unlawful entry or UCR category “stolen property:
❖ Aggravated assault—
attempted entry of any fixed buying, receiving, possessing.”
Unlawful intentional inflic-
structure, vehicle, or vessel
tion of serious bodily injury ◆ Trespassing—Unlawful entry
used for regular residence, in-
or unlawful threat or at- or attempted entry of the prop-
dustry, or business, with or
tempt to inflict bodily inju- erty of another with the intent
without force, with intent to
ry or death by means of a to commit a misdemeanor oth-
commit a felony or larceny.
deadly or dangerous weap- er than larceny or without
The term is used in the same
on with or without actual intent to commit a crime.
sense as in the UCR Crime
infliction of any injury. The
Index. ◆ Other property offenses—
term is used in the same
Includes extortion and all fraud
sense as in the UCR Crime ◆ Larceny—Unlawful taking or
offenses, such as forgery, coun-
Index. It includes conduct attempted taking of property
terfeiting, embezzlement,
encompassed under the (other than a motor vehicle)
check or credit card fraud, and
statutory names aggravated from the possession of another
attempts to commit any such
assault and battery, aggra- by stealth, without force and
offenses.
vated battery, assault with without deceit, with intent to
intent to kill, assault with permanently deprive the own- ■ Drug law violations—Includes un-
intent to commit murder or er of the property. This term is lawful sale, purchase, distribution,
manslaughter, atrocious as- used in the same sense as in manufacture, cultivation, transport,
sault, attempted murder, fe- the UCR Crime Index. It includes possession, or use of a controlled
lonious assault, and assault shoplifting and purse snatch- or prohibited substance or drug
with a deadly weapon. ing without force. or drug paraphernalia, or attempt

to commit these acts. Sniffing of disturbance, he or she may be ◆ Truancy—Violation of a com-

glue, paint, gasoline, and other in- charged with disorderly conduct.) pulsory school attendance law.
halants is also included. Hence,
◆ Disorderly conduct—Unlawful ◆ Ungovernability—Being be-
the term is broader than the UCR
interruption of the peace, qui- yond the control of parents,
category “drug abuse violations.”
et, or order of a community, guardians, or custodians or
■ Offenses against public order— including offenses called dis- being disobedient of parental
Includes weapons offenses; nonvi- turbing the peace, vagrancy, authority. This classification is
olent sex offenses; liquor law vio- loitering, unlawful assembly, referred to in various juvenile
lations, not status; disorderly and riot. codes as unruly, unmanage-
conduct; obstruction of justice; able, and incorrigible.
◆ Obstruction of justice—Inten-
and other offenses against public
tionally obstructing court or ◆ Status liquor law violations—
order as defined below.
law enforcement efforts in the Violation of laws regulating the
◆ Weapons offenses—Unlawful administration of justice, act- possession, purchase, or con-
sale, distribution, manufacture, ing in a way calculated to less- sumption of liquor by minors.
alteration, transportation, pos- en the authority or dignity of Some states treat consumption
session, or use of a deadly or the court, failing to obey the of alcohol and public drunken-
dangerous weapon or accesso- lawful order of a court, escap- ness of juveniles as status of-
ry, or attempt to commit any of ing from confinement, and vio- fenses rather than delinquen-
these acts. The term is used in lating probation or parole. This cy. Hence, some of these
the same sense as the UCR cat- term includes contempt, per- offenses may appear under
egory “weapons: carrying, pos- jury, bribery of witnesses, fail- this status offense code.
sessing, etc.” ure to report a crime, and non-
◆ Miscellaneous status offenses—
violent resistance of arrest.
◆ Sex offenses—All offenses hav- Numerous status offenses not
ing a sexual element not in- ◆ Other offenses against public included above (e.g., tobacco
volving violence. The term order—Other offenses against violation, curfew violation, and
combines the meaning of the government administration or violation of a court order in a
UCR categories “prostitution regulation, such as bribery; vi- status offense proceeding) and
and commercialized vice” and olations of laws pertaining to those offenses coded as
“sex offenses.” It includes of- fish and game, gambling, “other” in a jurisdiction’s origi-
fenses such as statutory rape, health, hitchhiking, and immi- nal data.
indecent exposure, prostitu- gration; and false fire alarms.
■ Dependency offenses—Includes
tion, solicitation, pimping,
■ Status offenses—Includes acts or actions that come to the attention
lewdness, fornication, and
types of conduct that are offenses of a juvenile court involving ne-
adultery.
only when committed or engaged glect or inadequate care of minors
◆ Liquor law violations, not in by a juvenile and that can be on the part of the parents or
status—Being in a public place adjudicated only by a juvenile guardians, such as abandonment
while intoxicated through con- court. Although state statutes de- or desertion; abuse or cruel treat-
sumption of alcohol. It in- fining status offenses vary and ment; improper or inadequate
cludes public intoxication, some states may classify cases in- conditions in the home; and insuf-
drunkenness, and other liquor volving these offenses as depen- ficient care or support resulting
law violations. It does not in- dency cases, for the purposes of from death, absence, or physical
clude driving under the influ- this Report the following types of or mental incapacity of the parents.
ence. The term is used in the offenses are classified as status
same sense as the UCR catego- offenses: Offenses may also be grouped into
ry of the same name. Some categories commonly used in the
states treat public drunken- ◆ Runaway—Leaving the custo- FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. These
ness of juveniles as a status of- dy and home of parents, guard- groupings are:
fense rather than delinquency. ians, or custodians without
Hence, some of these offenses permission and failing to re- ■ Crime Index—Includes all offens-
may appear under the status turn within a reasonable length es contained within the following
offense code “status liquor law of time, in violation of a statute violent crime and property crime
violations.” (When a person regulating the conduct of categories.
who is publicly intoxicated youth.
performs acts that cause a

◆ Violent Crime Index—Includes social agencies, district attorneys, time period covered by this Report,
the offenses of murder/nonneg- probation officers, victims, other the upper age of jurisdiction was 15
ligent manslaughter, forcible private citizens, and miscella- in 3 states (Connecticut, New York,
rape, robbery, and aggravated neous sources of referral often and North Carolina) and 16 in 10
assault. only defined by the code “other” states (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
in the original data. Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
◆ Property Crime Index—In-
New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tex-
cludes the offenses of burglary,
Status offense: Behavior that is con- as, and Wisconsin). In the remaining
larceny-theft, motor vehicle
sidered an offense only when commit- 37 states and the District of Colum-
theft, and arson.
ted by a juvenile (e.g., running away bia, the upper age of jurisdiction was
from home). (See “reason for referral.”) 17. It must be noted that within most
Source of referral: The agency or in-
states, there are exceptions in which
dividual filing a complaint with intake
Unit of count: A case disposed by a youth at or below the state’s upper
that initiates court processing.
court with juvenile jurisdiction during age of jurisdiction can be placed un-
the calendar year. Each case repre- der the original jurisdiction of the
■ Law enforcement agency—
sents a youth referred to the juvenile adult criminal court. For example, in
Includes metropolitan police, state most states, if a youth of a certain
court for a new referral for one or
police, park police, sheriffs, con- age is charged with an offense from a
more offenses. (See “reason for refer-
stables, police assigned to the ju- defined list of “excluded offenses,”
ral.”) The term disposed means that
venile court for special duty, and the case must originate in the adult
during the year some definite action
all others performing a police criminal court. In addition, in a num-
was taken or some treatment plan
function, with the exception of ber of states, the district attorney is
was decided on or initiated. (See “dis-
probation officers and officers of given the discretion of filing certain
position.”) Under this definition, a
the court. cases in either the juvenile court or
youth could be involved in more than
one case during a calendar year. the criminal court. Therefore, while
■ Other—Includes the youth’s own the upper age of jurisdiction is com-
parents, foster parents, adoptive monly recognized in all states, there
Upper age of jurisdiction: The oldest
parents, stepparents, grandpar- are numerous exceptions to this age
age at which a juvenile court has
ents, aunts, uncles, other legal criterion.
original jurisdiction over an individual
guardians, counselors, teachers,
for law-violating behavior. For the
principals, attendance officers,

Appendix C
Reported Juvenile Court

Cases Disposed in 2001
and 2002, by County
Information on the juvenile courts’ processed by their juvenile courts.

petitioned and nonpetitioned delin- Second, some agencies completed a
quency, status, and dependency case- juvenile court statistics (JCS) survey
loads for each year (2001 and 2002) is form provided by the project. The
presented in the following table. Data survey requested information about
for 2001 are presented first, followed each county jurisdiction, asking for
by data for 2002. The total population the number of delinquency, status of-
of each reporting jurisdiction, its pop- fense, and dependency cases dis-
ulation age 10 through the upper age posed and for the number of petition
of jurisdiction, and its population age and nonpetition cases. Third, statis-
0 through the upper age of jurisdic- tics for some jurisdictions were ab-
tion are also presented. Case rates stracted from their annual reports. In
(the number of cases per 1,000 juve- these instances, the report name is
niles in the population) are presented listed. Finally, a few states simply
for each case type for the state. Delin- sent statistical pages to the National
quency and status offense case rates Center for Juvenile Justice that con-
are based on the population age 10 tained counts of their courts’ hand-
through upper age, while rates for de- ling of juvenile matters.
pendency cases are based on the pop-
ulation age 0 through upper age. The units of count for the court sta-
tistics vary across jurisdictions. Al-
Table notes follow the table. The though many states used cases dis-
notes associated with each data pre- posed as the unit of count, other
sentation identify the source of the states reported cases filed, children
data, the mode of transmission, and disposed, petitions filed, hearings, ju-
the characteristics of data reported. venile arraignments, and charges.
The unit of count is identified in the
State and local agencies responsible notes for each data set. The unit of
for the collection of their juvenile count for each source should be
court statistics compiled the data in reviewed before any attempt is made
this table. Agencies transmitted these to compare statistics either across or
juvenile court caseload data to the within data sets. Variations in admin-
National Juvenile Court Data Archive istrative practices, differences in
in one of four modes. First, many ju- upper ages of jurisdiction, and wide
risdictions provided the project with ranges in available community re-
an automated data file that contained sources affect the number of cases
a detailed description of each case handled by individual counties and

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2001 and 2002, by County
states. Therefore, the data displayed California nonpetitioned delinquency Finally, although the majority of the
in this table should not be used to case rate was generated from the data presented in the appendix are
make comparisons among the delin- total number of nonpetitioned delin- for calendar years, several reporting
quency, status offense, or dependency quency cases from reporting counties. jurisdictions were not able to aggre-
workloads of counties or states with- gate data for this timeframe. In those
out carefully studying the definitions The figures within a column relate instances, the data cover fiscal years.
of the statistics presented. For rea- only to the specific case type. How- The period of coverage is indicated in
sons of confidentiality, case counts ever, some jurisdictions were unable the notes.
greater than 0 and less than 5 are not to provide statistics that distinguish
displayed in the table and are repre- delinquency and status offense cases For a complete county listing of juve-
sented with an asterisk (*). States from dependency matters or, at nile court case counts, readers are
that have indicated incomplete re- times, from other court activities. encouraged to visit Easy Access to
porting of data also are noted. Such information is presented in this State and County Juvenile Court Case
appendix in a column labeled “All Counts, a Web-based version of this
Furthermore, caution must be taken reported cases.” By its nature, this appendix, available from OJJDP’s
when interpreting the case rates ap- column contains a heterogeneous Statistical Briefing Book at
pearing at the end of each state table. mixture of units of count and case www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
Case rate is defined as the number of types. These variations are identified index.html. Unlike this appendix, the
juvenile court cases per 1,000 juve- in the notes associated with each pre- Web version does not aggregate data
niles in the population in the report- sentation of data. Furthermore, due from the smaller counties in each
ing counties. For example, not all Cali- to the nature of these data, case rates state.
fornia counties reported statistics on are not calculated for the “All reported
nonpetitioned delinquency cases. The cases” column.

Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2001, by County
2001 populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 through 0 through Non- Non- Non- reported
Reporting county Total upper age upper age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition cases
Alabama – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Autauga 44,700 5,900 12,500 105 150 16 36 0 — —
Baldwin 144,900 16,600 34,800 613 48 278 139 * — —
Barbour 29,000 3,500 7,200 166 * 46 20 0 — —
Bibb 21,100 2,300 5,200 61 0 29 0 18 — —
Blount 52,200 5,900 13,100 190 0 217 68 * — —
Bullock 11,400 1,400 2,900 11 0 10 0 * — —
Butler 21,200 2,700 5,500 65 * * * 0 — —
Calhoun 111,200 11,800 25,800 553 282 77 174 96 — —
Chambers 36,400 4,000 8,800 136 6 72 7 0 — —
Coffee 43,600 5,100 10,600 217 0 121 0 * — —
Colbert 54,900 6,000 12,800 157 0 42 0 27 — —
Cullman 77,700 8,500 18,500 350 25 66 431 * — —
Dale 49,200 5,700 13,100 295 0 302 0 * — —
Dallas 46,000 6,100 13,000 439 0 262 0 16 — —
De Kalb 65,700 7,000 16,000 187 0 30 0 9 — —
Elmore 67,700 7,900 17,100 310 0 96 0 * — —
Etowah 103,000 11,200 24,300 386 0 84 0 0 — —
Houston 89,600 10,600 22,900 737 61 241 30 0 — —
Jackson 54,100 6,000 12,800 269 0 193 0 * — —
Jefferson 661,100 74,400 162,000 1,775 623 299 289 0 — —
Lauderdale 87,500 9,300 19,800 357 59 128 286 17 — —
Lee 116,500 12,000 26,400 561 162 401 248 68 — —
Limestone 66,900 7,400 16,400 183 66 13 10 22 — —
Madison 281,000 32,400 71,100 1,241 576 39 428 39 — —
Marshall 82,400 9,000 20,300 403 52 297 889 17 — —
Mobile 400,500 49,100 108,500 2,084 1,626 289 1,277 260 — —
Montgomery 222,800 25,600 57,000 1,620 183 55 * 58 — —
Morgan 111,700 12,800 27,800 692 75 170 462 55 — —
Russell 49,500 5,900 13,000 349 0 318 0 27 — —
St. Clair 66,300 7,800 16,500 175 0 396 0 0 — —
Shelby 149,200 17,000 38,700 331 123 160 269 14 — —
Talladega 80,300 9,300 19,700 464 24 97 90 * — —
Tuscaloosa 165,400 16,900 38,100 809 231 92 104 67 — —
Walker 70,800 7,500 16,500 374 0 494 0 * — —
33 Small Counties 732,600 85,700 182,900 2,828 54 2,107 80 178 — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,493 4,432 7,540 5,342 1,010 — —
Population Represented 4,468,000 510,300 1,111,700 510,300 510,300 510,300 510,300 1,111,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 38.20 8.68 14.77 10.47 0.91 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 67 — —
Alaska – 27 Districts
27 Small Districts 632,400 90,300 189,600 1,993 4,191 — — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,993 4,191 — — — — —
Population Represented 632,400 90,300 189,600 90,300 90,300 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 22.07 46.41 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Districts 27 27 — — — — —
Arizona – 15 Counties
Apache 67,800 12,700 25,800 166 178 27 97 — — —
Cochise 118,800 14,900 31,700 617 1,327 60 557 — — —
Coconino 117,600 16,200 33,900 767 1,177 193 759 — — —
Maricopa 3,196,200 370,600 881,000 12,651 9,219 2,536 8,863 — — —
Mohave 160,000 17,300 37,500 783 1,204 27 608 — — —
Navajo 99,000 17,100 34,900 752 486 138 508 — — —
Pima 861,400 97,100 216,100 5,985 6,091 145 4,085 — — —
Pinal 186,900 21,600 47,600 1,352 902 110 738 — — —
Yavapai 173,700 18,200 37,100 928 1,016 102 607 — — —

2001 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

Yuma 163,500 21,100 48,100 2,218 645 206 749 — — —

5 Small Counties 151,900 20,400 42,900 1,449 943 312 619 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 27,668 23,188 3,856 18,190 — — —
Population Represented 5,296,800 627,100 1,436,800 627,100 627,100 627,100 627,100 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 44.12 36.98 6.15 29.01 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 15 15 15 15 — — —
Arkansas – 75 Counties
Benton 159,400 18,700 42,400 278 — 240 — 104 — —
Craighead 83,000 8,700 20,000 238 — 304 — 16 — —
Crittenden 51,200 7,100 15,800 463 — 128 — 25 — —
Faulkner 88,400 10,200 22,400 307 — 333 — 106 — —
Garland 89,200 9,100 19,100 489 — 420 — 188 — —
Jefferson 83,700 10,100 21,800 543 — 292 — 137 — —
Mississippi 51,100 6,800 15,200 282 — 245 — 58 — —
Pulaski 362,400 40,000 91,800 1,805 — 519 — 323 — —
Saline 85,000 10,200 21,300 262 — 141 — 67 — —
Sebastian 116,300 13,400 30,400 436 — 480 — 185 — —
Washington 162,400 17,400 40,900 726 — 500 — 106 — —
White 68,500 7,700 16,600 111 — 135 — 43 — —
63 Small Counties 1,291,400 153,000 322,700 4,085 — 2,953 — 1,290 — —
Number of Reported Cases 10,025 — 6,690 — 2,648 — —
Population Represented 2,692,100 312,200 680,300 312,200 — 312,200 — 680,300 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 32.11 — 21.43 — 3.89 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 75 — 75 — 75 — —
California – 58 Counties
Alameda 1,470,500 156,200 362,000 3,316 3,570 6 78 2,163 — —
Butte 205,900 24,000 48,500 1,096 591 18 26 407 — —
Contra Costa 976,900 117,600 257,900 0 0 0 0 9 — —
El Dorado 161,400 21,000 40,900 565 355 11 29 158 — —
Fresno 814,700 116,000 256,900 3,595 7,490 14 212 — — —
Humboldt 126,700 14,200 28,900 339 82 6 35 59 — —
Imperial 143,700 21,200 44,300 1,784 258 167 32 95 — —
Kern 675,900 96,100 212,800 5,001 3,166 12 2,652 2,225 — —
Kings 131,900 16,600 38,000 535 0 * 0 180 — —
Lake 60,600 7,400 14,400 254 274 * 11 138 — —
Los Angeles 9,656,400 1,158,100 2,680,400 16,808 14,490 273 335 10,004 — —
Madera 125,900 16,700 36,700 664 681 12 304 150 — —
Marin 248,400 23,000 50,600 494 173 22 52 52 — —
Mendocino 86,900 11,000 21,800 196 0 * 0 113 — —
Merced 218,200 34,000 74,200 749 803 188 403 191 — —
Monterey 408,300 50,700 115,900 1,127 1,338 23 27 30 — —
Napa 127,700 14,300 30,500 326 211 14 43 61 — —
Nevada 93,900 11,300 20,900 256 221 10 70 33 — —
Orange 2,895,800 329,300 776,400 8,214 3,016 92 242 2,254 — —
Placer 264,900 32,500 67,700 856 600 0 43 300 — —
Riverside 1,620,800 220,300 484,500 3,441 2,553 0 56 2,852 — —
Sacramento 1,266,500 157,200 349,400 5,075 798 8 * 1,384 — —
San Bernardino 1,765,600 255,700 561,500 6,320 3,340 814 82 4,691 — —
San Diego 2,858,900 322,800 738,600 7,015 2,444 884 232 2,637 — —
San Francisco 774,500 48,600 112,400 1,029 1,622 * 9 768 — —
San Joaquin 593,100 83,300 181,400 1,706 0 0 0 931 — —
San Luis Obispo 250,900 26,500 53,000 770 0 * 0 225 — —
San Mateo 707,400 70,400 162,400 1,786 793 18 29 338 — —
Santa Barbara 400,800 44,700 99,200 1,722 1,445 72 557 117 — —
Santa Clara 1,690,100 176,400 416,300 3,714 3,833 * 164 1,017 — —
Santa Cruz 255,300 28,200 60,400 587 0 0 0 199 — —
Shasta 167,300 21,800 42,500 988 957 11 136 116 — —
Solano 404,600 53,000 114,900 1,294 162 21 16 244 — —
Sonoma 465,700 53,800 112,600 1,321 945 * 195 198 — —
Stanislaus 465,300 66,400 142,700 1,769 1,926 16 348 369 — —
Sutter 80,100 10,700 22,800 216 347 * 29 139 — —


Tehama 56,800 7,500 15,200 291 211 * 7 188 — —

Tulare 374,000 56,200 124,500 1,870 0 6 0 95 — —
Tuolumne 55,300 5,800 11,000 151 148 * 81 235 — —
Ventura 769,100 97,600 215,800 3,938 3,246 497 2,713 434 — —
Yolo 174,700 20,000 43,300 607 60 37 * 346 — —
Yuba 61,400 8,600 19,000 176 409 7 11 173 — —
16 Small Counties 379,400 47,300 93,000 1,718 1,177 63 248 476 — —
Population Represented 34,532,200 4,154,100 9,355,900 4,154,100 4,154,100 4,154,100 4,154,100 9,096,100 — —
Colorado – 63 Counties
Adams 377,100 45,400 107,500 1,172 — — — 398 — —
Arapahoe 503,200 62,300 135,000 1,729 — — — 342 — —
Boulder 298,900 31,500 69,300 1,356 — — — 135 — —
Denver 561,500 49,900 126,900 2,248 — — — 531 — —
Douglas 198,100 25,000 61,700 596 — — — 12 — —
El Paso 534,000 66,300 148,600 2,054 — — — 420 — —
Jefferson 531,800 64,200 134,300 2,148 — — — 301 — —
Larimer 259,600 29,000 61,700 940 — — — 101 — —
Mesa 119,200 14,200 29,600 408 — — — 141 — —
Pueblo 144,400 17,000 37,200 591 — — — 229 — —
Weld 193,600 24,000 54,100 1,123 — — — 131 — —
52 Small Counties 705,700 82,000 171,100 2,621 — — — 572 — —
Number of Reported Cases 16,986 — — — 3,313 — —
Population Represented 4,427,300 510,900 1,137,000 510,900 — — — 1,137,000 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 33.25 — — — 2.91 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 63 — — — 63 — —
Connecticut – 13 Venue Districts

Bridgeport — — — 858 530 250 274 — — —
Danbury — — — 187 222 56 87 — — —
Hartford — — — 1,347 894 212 298 — — —
Middletown — — — 510 345 115 118 — — —
Montville — — — 506 483 136 260 — — —
New Haven — — — 2,131 844 494 315 — — —
Norwalk — — — 278 111 49 49 — — —
Plainville — — — 910 293 343 127 — — —
Stamford — — — 290 221 53 58 — — —
Talcottville — — — 446 243 160 176 — — —
Torrington — — — 300 222 116 162 — — —
Waterbury — — — 1,074 568 433 179 — — —
Willimantic — — — 318 333 118 178 — — —
Population Represented 3,433,200 292,700 749,100 292,700 292,700 292,700 292,700 — — —
Rates for Reporting Venue Districts 31.27 18.14 8.66 7.79 — — —
Number of Reporting Venue Districts 13 13 13 13 — — —
Delaware – 3 Counties
Kent 129,100 15,700 34,100 1,645 — — — 308 — —
New Castle 506,000 55,000 122,000 5,515 — — — 815 — —
Sussex 160,500 16,300 34,900 1,639 — — — 113 — —
Population Represented 795,600 87,100 191,000 87,100 — — — 191,000 — —


District of Columbia – 1 District

District of Columbia 569,400 46,300 111,800 1,402 796 25 12 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,402 796 25 12 — — —
Population Represented 569,400 46,300 111,800 46,300 46,300 46,300 46,300 — — —
Rates for Reporting District 30.27 17.19 0.54 0.26 — — —
Number of Reporting Districts 1 1 1 1 — — —
Florida – 67 Counties
Alachua 219,300 20,900 44,500 1,321 586 11 12 — — —
Bay 149,900 17,000 36,500 963 555 35 112 — — —
Brevard 486,500 52,700 107,700 2,493 1,314 22 36 — — —
Broward 1,670,800 180,600 404,100 7,157 3,416 41 26 — — —
Charlotte 146,200 11,500 23,300 605 395 6 13 — — —
Citrus 121,300 10,800 21,100 465 340 6 * — — —
Clay 146,000 20,000 40,500 976 605 9 22 — — —
Collier 264,400 23,800 53,700 1,288 542 36 64 — — —
Columbia 57,500 7,000 14,600 283 227 * * — — —
Duval 790,700 94,100 211,300 3,682 3,438 * 22 — — —
Escambia 296,500 32,300 70,100 2,889 767 20 23 — — —
Hernando 134,400 12,700 25,900 445 192 * 0 — — —
Highlands 88,600 8,100 17,200 439 471 * 16 — — —
Hillsborough 1,026,400 117,500 264,000 5,106 4,492 36 50 — — —
Indian River 115,400 10,800 22,400 507 207 11 10 — — —
Lake 224,200 21,300 46,100 1,450 500 13 23 — — —
Lee 459,100 42,200 92,600 2,342 943 34 45 — — —
Leon 239,200 23,500 51,800 1,251 595 26 38 — — —
Manatee 272,400 26,000 58,000 1,518 891 10 9 — — —
Marion 265,100 27,800 57,400 1,592 641 18 15 — — —
Martin 129,200 11,900 24,500 750 457 46 24 — — —
Miami-Dade 2,287,100 262,600 572,400 10,764 3,288 56 22 — — —
Monroe 79,200 6,400 13,700 270 233 * 16 — — —
Nassau 59,100 7,100 14,700 278 139 6 14 — — —
Okaloosa 171,700 20,100 43,200 1,508 423 92 44 — — —
Orange 926,200 105,300 238,900 6,799 1,574 31 13 — — —
Osceola 183,300 22,900 49,700 1,306 423 * * — — —
Palm Beach 1,158,800 115,200 251,300 4,669 3,783 19 80 — — —
Pasco 359,400 34,400 74,400 2,073 442 11 * — — —
Pinellas 923,800 84,700 182,700 6,229 2,387 67 36 — — —
Polk 492,100 55,900 122,200 3,723 2,314 45 79 — — —
Putnam 70,500 8,400 17,600 375 304 0 0 — — —
St. Johns 130,100 14,800 30,000 606 415 28 21 — — —
St. Lucie 198,200 21,500 45,200 1,133 289 8 * — — —
Santa Rosa 121,900 15,900 32,200 624 271 39 45 — — —
Sarasota 333,400 26,700 55,400 1,419 538 24 34 — — —
Seminole 373,400 44,900 95,100 2,014 985 30 51 — — —
Volusia 451,600 45,100 93,000 3,231 1,479 93 123 — — —
29 Small Counties 730,600 80,700 168,300 3,750 1,946 55 72 — — —
Population Represented 16,353,600 1,745,100 3,787,400 1,745,100 1,745,100 1,745,100 1,745,100 — — —
Georgia – 159 Counties

Baldwin 44,800 4,000 8,900 246 — 54 — 111 — —
Bartow 79,600 8,700 21,300 447 248 211 208 191 61 —
Bibb 153,900 16,000 39,200 1,738 — 300 — 1,155 — —
Bulloch 56,700 5,200 11,900 — — — — — — —
Carroll 91,600 9,400 22,600 948 — 343 — 75 — —
Catoosa 54,900 5,700 13,400 327 — 150 — 80 — —
Chatham 233,200 23,000 55,800 2,023 423 374 105 455 9 —
Cherokee 151,700 16,300 40,800 583 32 184 10 171 * —


Clarke 102,200 6,700 17,400 726 — 192 — 210 — —

Clayton 248,100 28,600 71,300 2,637 783 504 233 1,148 18 —
Cobb 626,800 63,800 156,400 2,792 — 647 — 1,257 — —
Columbia 91,800 11,500 25,200 — — — — — — —
Coweta 94,100 10,200 25,600 295 128 26 36 202 12 —
De Kalb 672,600 62,500 159,000 — — — — — — —
Dougherty 95,900 10,200 25,000 985 96 61 85 89 10 —
Douglas 95,600 10,700 25,100 642 — 130 — 262 — —
Fayette 94,500 12,500 24,900 441 70 87 35 91 10 —
Floyd 91,400 9,100 21,400 712 — 441 — 383 — —
Forsyth 109,100 10,300 29,300 — — — — — — —
Fulton 820,700 76,100 193,500 3,082 1,886 376 446 2,152 491 —
Glynn 68,500 7,100 16,300 654 — 195 — 92 — —
Gwinnett 623,600 67,000 167,500 1,688 619 427 287 415 56 —
Hall 146,900 14,500 37,900 618 120 153 * 220 7 —
Henry 130,500 14,800 36,000 634 28 195 24 279 70 —
Houston 113,200 13,200 30,100 — — — — — — —
Laurens 45,300 4,900 11,400 — — — — — — —
Liberty 59,800 7,000 19,500 — — — — — — —
Lowndes 92,200 9,600 23,000 401 — 125 — 39 — —
Muscogee 186,100 19,400 47,600 1,090 1,032 292 433 * 0 —
Newton 67,200 7,200 17,800 595 30 214 32 113 7 —
Paulding 88,900 10,000 26,200 538 — 53 — 277 — —
Richmond 199,000 21,400 51,100 2,087 — 729 — 427 — —
Rockdale 71,800 8,500 18,600 901 — 82 — 158 — —
Spalding 59,200 6,400 15,400 435 21 35 * 0 0 —
Thomas 42,900 4,900 10,900 — — — — — — —
Troup 59,600 6,700 15,700 499 255 37 117 135 24 —
Walker 61,900 6,200 14,400 255 84 99 43 96 0 —
Walton 64,400 7,100 17,300 594 179 215 93 64 * —
Whitfield 85,600 8,800 22,700 478 160 141 61 247 19 —
120 Small Counties 2,115,700 227,700 529,000 8,791 242 2,830 125 2,915 19 —
Number of Reported Cases 38,882 6,436 9,902 2,378 13,510 823 —
Population Represented 8,391,300 872,700 2,116,200 683,600 358,700 683,400 358,700 1,655,600 886,200 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 56.88 17.94 14.49 6.63 8.16 0.93 —
Number of Reporting Counties 110 22 109 22 109 22 —
Hawaii – 5 Counties
Hawaii 151,800 19,800 41,100 553 399 89 662 511 — —
Honolulu 879,400 89,900 204,200 1,616 415 359 1,974 1,179 — —
Kalawao 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — —
Kauai 59,100 7,500 15,400 353 72 42 210 64 — —
Maui 131,600 15,200 33,000 419 162 179 291 120 — —
Number of Reported Cases 2,941 1,048 669 3,137 1,874 — —
Population Represented 1,222,000 132,400 293,700 132,400 132,400 132,400 132,400 293,700 — —
Idaho – 44 Counties
Ada 312,900 37,300 84,600 2,960 216 — — 117 72 —
Bannock 75,900 9,300 21,200 1,331 137 — — 163 * —
Bonneville 83,900 12,400 26,400 318 466 — — 27 36 —
Canyon 139,200 18,100 42,700 0 1,899 — — 0 155 —
Kootenai 111,800 14,100 29,900 0 971 — — 0 90 —
Twin Falls 64,600 8,300 17,700 708 159 — — 154 14 —
38 Small Counties 533,000 71,700 148,700 3,629 1,277 — — 417 129 —
Number of Reported Cases 8,946 5,125 — — 878 501 —
Population Represented 1,321,200 171,100 371,100 171,100 171,100 — — 371,100 371,100 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 52.28 29.95 — — 2.37 1.35 —
Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 — — 44 44 —


Illinois – 102 Counties

Adams 68,000 7,000 15,700 114 — 21 — 47 — —
Champaign 180,800 14,800 35,800 132 — 13 — 92 — —
Coles 52,300 4,100 9,600 239 — 19 — 25 — —
Cook 5,378,600 531,800 1,318,800 10,392 — * — 2,510 — —
De Kalb 90,500 8,200 19,500 170 — 22 — 54 — —
Du Page 915,200 95,100 229,000 832 — 45 — 54 — —
Henry 50,700 5,500 11,700 64 — 10 — 17 — —
Jackson 58,900 4,500 10,500 71 — 0 — 15 — —
Kane 424,900 47,800 121,100 956 — 46 — 78 — —
Kankakee 104,600 11,400 26,500 321 — 8 — 39 — —
Knox 55,300 5,000 11,400 57 — 0 — 29 — —
Lake 662,300 74,100 183,400 695 — 25 — 230 — —
La Salle 112,100 11,600 26,100 289 — 13 — 64 — —
McHenry 270,100 31,700 75,900 245 — 0 — 53 — —
McLean 152,400 13,800 33,700 166 — 32 — 70 — —
Macon 113,700 11,300 26,300 303 — 13 — 63 — —
Madison 260,600 26,600 60,300 618 — 0 — 271 — —
Peoria 182,300 17,700 43,500 487 — 19 — 196 — —
Rock Island 148,800 14,100 33,200 120 — * — 84 — —
St. Clair 256,100 29,200 66,100 767 — 112 — 104 — —
Sangamon 190,300 19,000 44,600 116 — 84 — 187 — —
Tazewell 128,200 12,700 29,000 169 — 9 — 90 — —
Vermilion 83,600 8,100 19,500 240 — 74 — 135 — —
Whiteside 60,600 6,100 14,100 69 — 7 — 21 — —
Will 532,300 60,600 149,200 595 — 139 — 102 — —
Williamson 61,800 5,700 13,200 71 — 13 — 48 — —
Winnebago 280,400 29,400 69,800 609 — 50 — 310 — —
75 Small Counties 1,642,900 167,300 371,200 4,129 — 275 — 871 — —
Population Represented 12,518,400 1,274,300 3,068,600 1,274,300 — 1,273,100 — 3,068,600 — —
Indiana – 92 Counties
Allen 335,200 41,200 93,700 2,567 979 1,244 378 353 — —
Bartholomew 72,000 8,500 19,200 190 61 55 52 24 — —
Clark 97,200 10,500 23,800 173 * 38 0 102 — —
Delaware 119,600 12,100 26,300 205 98 108 108 162 — —
Elkhart 185,500 23,800 54,200 708 596 149 377 88 — —
Floyd 71,400 8,700 18,500 160 141 63 81 * — —
Grant 72,900 8,000 17,300 363 99 59 74 39 — —
Hamilton 196,800 25,400 60,500 754 171 132 29 438 — —
Hancock 56,700 7,000 14,900 76 97 7 84 20 — —
Hendricks 109,900 14,000 30,500 449 312 124 80 10 — —
Henry 48,400 5,500 11,700 75 28 21 21 55 — —
Howard 85,000 9,800 22,000 348 40 94 17 83 — —
Johnson 118,700 14,500 32,100 586 62 40 11 65 — —
Knox 39,000 4,200 8,800 46 11 25 47 16 — —
Kosciusko 74,800 9,400 20,800 46 88 0 6 29 — —
Lake 485,400 58,600 129,500 2,183 0 210 0 661 — —
La Porte 110,300 12,500 27,100 465 7 98 22 68 — —
Lawrence 46,100 5,100 11,300 121 124 28 129 21 — —
Madison 132,400 14,400 31,600 725 57 402 89 83 — —
Marion 863,300 97,100 226,300 5,967 3,029 749 1,480 1,372 — —
Marshall 45,600 5,900 12,700 77 25 27 14 76 — —
Monroe 120,100 9,500 21,500 221 71 121 53 236 — —
Morgan 67,200 8,400 18,200 199 23 62 67 27 — —
Porter 148,800 18,100 37,900 746 121 108 32 323 — —
St. Joseph 266,000 30,900 69,400 1,062 353 130 * 303 — —
Shelby 43,900 5,500 11,700 84 22 7 19 34 — —
Tippecanoe 149,600 13,600 31,300 441 9 649 * 215 — —
Vanderburgh 171,900 18,200 40,200 413 115 64 75 297 — —


Vigo 104,800 10,900 24,100 385 26 80 71 58 — —

Warrick 53,000 6,800 14,100 71 75 14 96 15 — —
Wayne 70,600 8,100 17,300 95 94 14 20 63 — —
61 Small Counties 1,565,400 193,400 412,600 4,656 1,830 916 1,139 2,194 — —
Iowa – 99 Counties
Black Hawk 127,500 13,100 28,200 350 — — — 151 — —
Cerro Gordo 45,700 5,000 10,500 71 — — — 108 — —
Clinton 50,000 6,000 12,400 147 — — — 90 — —
Des Moines 42,000 4,700 10,000 126 — — — 94 — —
Dubuque 89,200 10,300 22,100 340 — — — 135 — —
Johnson 112,800 9,400 21,900 212 — — — 148 — —
Linn 193,900 20,900 48,100 407 — — — 337 — —
Muscatine 41,900 4,900 10,800 115 — — — 107 — —
Polk 380,200 41,100 96,000 1,175 — — — 1,377 — —
Pottawattamie 87,800 10,500 22,200 255 — — — 233 — —
Scott 158,700 19,000 40,900 351 — — — 293 — —
Story 79,600 6,600 14,500 91 — — — 26 — —
Warren 41,100 5,100 10,700 84 — — — 59 — —
Woodbury 103,500 12,100 27,800 264 — — — 325 — —
85 Small Counties 1,377,700 165,600 335,100 2,622 — — — 2,319 — —
Population Represented 2,931,600 334,400 711,100 334,400 — — — 711,100 — —
Kansas – 105 Counties

Butler 60,000 8,200 16,600 222 — — — — — —
Douglas 100,700 9,100 20,100 274 — — — — — —
Johnson 464,000 55,400 123,500 3,712 — — — — — —
Leavenworth 70,100 8,500 18,400 266 — — — — — —
Reno 64,500 7,300 15,500 725 — — — — — —
Riley 62,300 4,800 11,600 205 — — — — — —
Saline 53,800 6,300 13,900 876 — — — — — —
Sedgwick 456,200 55,500 127,000 1,889 — — — — — —
Shawnee 170,400 19,500 42,600 1,273 — — — — — —
Wyandotte 158,500 19,300 44,300 1,711 — — — — — —
95 Small Counties 1,040,600 130,200 268,800 6,798 — — — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 17,951 — — — — — —
Population Represented 2,701,200 324,100 702,400 324,100 — — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 55.39 — — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 105 — — — — — —
Louisiana – 64 Parishes
Acadia 58,900 7,000 16,200 — — — — — — 359
Ascension 79,600 9,300 22,100 — — — — — — 575
Bossier 99,700 11,100 26,000 — — — — — — 988
Caddo 251,300 27,100 62,200 — — — — — — 2,927
Calcasieu 183,100 19,500 46,200 — — — — — — 1,150
East Baton Rouge 410,800 41,700 99,500 — — — — — — 1,968
Iberia 73,500 8,700 20,400 — — — — — — 1,254
Jefferson 452,300 45,100 106,000 — — — — — — 6,277
Lafayette 191,100 20,600 48,200 — — — — — — 1,625
Lafourche 90,100 9,900 22,500 — — — — — — 603
Livingston 95,600 11,100 25,700 — — — — — — 331
Orleans 477,600 50,100 118,900 — — — — — — 936
Ouachita 146,400 16,600 38,100 — — — — — — 1,081


Rapides 126,400 13,500 31,600 — — — — — — 2,148

St. Bernard 66,600 6,900 15,500 — — — — — — 603
St. Landry 88,100 10,200 23,800 — — — — — — 504
St. Mary 52,800 6,300 14,400 — — — — — — 991
St. Tammany 196,200 22,900 51,300 — — — — — — 1,703
Tangipahoa 101,600 11,000 26,000 — — — — — — 237
Terrebonne 105,000 12,200 28,100 — — — — — — 671
Vermilion 53,900 6,200 13,900 — — — — — — 355
Vernon 52,300 5,300 14,800 — — — — — — 316
42 Small Parishes 1,013,900 111,400 254,900 — — — — — — 10,261
Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 37,863
Population Represented 4,466,500 483,800 1,126,500 — — — — — — 483,800
Rates for Reporting Parishes — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting Parishes — — — — — — 64
Maine – 16 Counties
Androscoggin 104,300 11,800 24,300 417 — — — 69 — —
Aroostook 73,100 8,200 15,800 263 — — — 87 — —
Cumberland 268,000 29,000 60,700 986 — — — 110 — —
Kennebec 118,000 13,700 27,100 540 — — — 63 — —
Oxford 55,300 6,700 12,800 82 — — — 31 — —
Penobscot 145,900 16,100 32,000 517 — — — 131 — —
Somerset 50,900 6,200 12,100 212 — — — 56 — —
York 192,000 22,500 45,900 822 — — — 144 — —
8 Small Counties 279,100 32,100 62,400 1,169 — — — 226 — —
Number of Reported Cases 5,008 — — — 917 — —
Maryland – 24 Counties
Allegany 74,400 7,400 15,000 264 508 7 133 — — —
Anne Arundel 496,900 57,000 124,800 1,357 3,005 * 248 — — —
Baltimore 762,200 84,400 178,800 3,306 3,460 * 147 — — —
Calvert 77,700 11,100 22,400 412 282 * 135 — — —
Carroll 154,700 20,100 41,800 307 524 13 89 — — —
Cecil 88,400 11,300 23,900 386 565 * 20 — — —
Charles 125,000 16,700 35,400 476 965 * 88 — — —
Frederick 202,400 25,400 55,200 935 836 43 376 — — —
Harford 222,700 28,500 61,100 548 913 11 259 — — —
Howard 255,400 32,100 71,000 499 1,220 0 148 — — —
Montgomery 893,100 101,200 225,900 1,139 2,047 * 43 — — —
Prince George’s 817,300 95,600 217,500 1,854 2,522 * 258 — — —
St. Mary’s 87,500 11,100 24,100 304 525 0 157 — — —
Washington 133,000 14,300 30,900 387 777 * 150 — — —
Wicomico 85,400 9,700 20,900 188 1,084 * 176 — — —
Baltimore City 645,300 73,400 159,600 6,650 2,318 * 276 — — —
8 Small Counties 258,100 28,200 57,900 886 2,948 11 455 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,898 24,499 109 3,158 — — —
Massachusetts – 14 Counties
Barnstable 225,400 19,500 41,700 3,008 — 546 — 95 — —
Berkshire 133,900 12,600 26,900 1,312 — 318 — 74 — —
Bristol 538,900 52,600 122,000 4,102 — 1,138 — 308 — —
Dukes 15,200 1,500 3,100 — — — — — — —
Essex 732,600 72,500 171,500 5,237 — 1,254 — 401 — —
Franklin 71,600 7,300 15,000 1,499 — 316 — 133 — —
Hampden 457,000 48,300 109,100 3,942 — 842 — 408 — —


Hampshire 151,500 12,300 26,700 — — — — — — —

Middlesex 1,473,600 125,700 307,200 — — — — — — —
Nantucket 9,600 700 1,700 — — — — — — —
Norfolk 653,100 59,000 142,000 — — — — — — —
Plymouth 479,600 50,900 117,600 2,724 — 507 — 136 — —
Suffolk 691,400 52,800 129,400 4,451 — 1,699 — 421 — —
Worcester 762,000 77,200 179,900 4,204 — 1,614 — 416 — —
Population Represented 6,395,400 592,900 1,393,900 393,600 — 393,600 — 913,200 — —
Michigan – 83 Counties
Allegan 108,000 12,800 28,600 782 — 150 — 84 — —
Barry 57,500 6,500 14,300 381 — 0 — 35 — —
Bay 109,700 10,900 24,800 602 — 26 — 40 — —
Berrien 162,100 17,200 39,200 2,471 — 334 — 160 — —
Calhoun 138,400 14,700 33,600 1,834 — 44 — 161 — —
Cass 51,400 5,600 12,000 368 — 133 — 90 — —
Clinton 65,700 7,500 16,800 405 — * — 37 — —
Eaton 104,700 11,300 25,000 749 — 0 — 41 — —
Genesee 439,000 47,300 112,500 1,729 — 146 — 1,379 — —
Grand Traverse 79,900 8,400 18,300 752 — 27 — 111 — —
Ingham 279,800 25,600 61,600 1,414 — 130 — 595 — —
Ionia 62,100 6,800 15,400 379 — 50 — 30 — —
Isabella 63,700 5,100 11,700 317 — 45 — 107 — —
Jackson 159,900 16,700 38,300 1,453 — 47 — 303 — —
Kalamazoo 239,100 22,800 54,100 2,733 — 391 — 824 — —
Kent 582,000 64,100 154,300 3,753 — 279 — 575 — —
Lapeer 89,500 10,400 22,800 478 — 84 — 58 — —
Lenawee 99,800 10,800 23,700 880 — 7 — 87 — —
Livingston 163,900 19,200 42,900 690 — 237 — 21 — —
Macomb 800,500 76,300 180,500 2,256 — 279 — 617 — —
Marquette 64,600 5,800 12,400 302 — 97 — 42 — —
Midland 83,600 9,300 20,600 434 — 19 — 79 — —
Monroe 148,000 17,000 37,100 1,103 — 172 — 175 — —
Montcalm 62,000 6,900 15,400 315 — 24 — 31 — —
Muskegon 171,500 19,400 43,900 1,244 — 14 — 280 — —
Oakland 1,202,400 119,900 283,100 4,031 — 213 — 335 — —
Ottawa 243,600 27,600 64,700 2,735 — 164 — 214 — —
Saginaw 209,700 22,500 51,800 1,081 — 44 — 367 — —
St. Clair 166,100 18,200 41,000 966 — 38 — 179 — —
St. Joseph 62,500 6,900 16,000 427 — 127 — 122 — —
Shiawassee 72,100 7,900 17,800 365 — 80 — 69 — —
Tuscola 58,400 6,700 14,200 190 — 17 — 50 — —
Van Buren 76,800 9,000 19,900 798 — 120 — 45 — —
Washtenaw 328,300 27,700 68,300 2,068 — 82 — 439 — —
Wayne 2,051,100 226,300 540,700 9,560 — 1,600 — 5,863 — —
48 Small Counties 1,147,300 117,400 252,100 8,385 — 1,183 — 1,036 — —
Population Represented 10,004,700 1,048,700 2,429,200 1,048,700 — 1,048,700 — 2,429,200 — —
Minnesota – 87 Counties
Anoka 305,600 39,600 86,200 1,584 — 793 — — — —
Blue Earth 56,300 5,500 11,500 316 — 153 — — — —
Clay 51,600 6,000 12,300 350 — 117 — — — —
Dakota 363,800 47,400 103,600 3,077 — 1,476 — — — —
Hennepin 1,123,200 118,200 266,100 9,116 — 8,197 — — — —
Olmsted 126,700 15,500 33,200 597 — 329 — — — —
Otter Tail 57,200 7,200 13,600 344 — 94 — — — —
Ramsey 512,100 58,200 129,100 3,671 — 789 — — — —


Rice 57,900 6,900 14,100 373 — 184 — — — —

St. Louis 200,900 21,600 42,900 1,541 — 609 — — — —
Scott 97,600 12,300 29,500 0 — 0 — — — —
Stearns 135,900 16,200 33,600 1,098 — 442 — — — —
Washington 207,300 27,400 59,000 750 — 232 — — — —
Wright 93,900 13,100 28,100 801 — 244 — — — —
73 Small Counties 1,595,600 202,000 405,000 12,990 — 5,296 — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 36,608 — 18,955 — — — —
Population Represented 4,985,700 597,100 1,267,700 597,100 — 597,100 — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 61.31 — 31.75 — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 87 — 87 — — — —
Mississippi – 82 Counties
De Soto 113,400 13,900 31,500 83 538 * 133 — — —
Forrest 73,100 7,700 17,600 87 292 * 44 — — —
Harrison 189,700 21,700 49,100 129 513 0 10 — — —
Hinds 249,800 30,800 68,300 91 1,216 * 142 — — —
Jackson 132,900 16,700 35,900 127 577 61 98 — — —
Jones 65,000 7,500 16,500 228 207 7 14 — — —
Lauderdale 77,600 9,100 20,300 581 328 106 76 — — —
Lee 76,700 9,400 21,000 184 504 0 14 — — —
Lowndes 61,100 7,700 17,100 77 54 11 16 — — —
Madison 76,500 9,600 21,500 359 34 84 8 — — —
Rankin 119,000 13,800 30,100 207 291 20 62 — — —
Washington 62,000 8,500 19,100 78 520 16 180 — — —
70 Small Counties 1,561,500 192,400 415,100 3,324 4,186 446 753 — — —
Missouri – 115 Counties

Boone 137,000 12,200 29,200 441 591 338 749 140 352 —
Buchanan 85,600 8,400 19,300 189 656 134 650 72 96 —
Cape Girardeau 69,200 6,500 14,900 90 395 7 206 13 9 —
Cass 84,800 9,600 22,100 60 372 31 520 10 27 —
Clay 188,200 18,600 45,200 213 947 70 217 82 66 —
Cole 71,500 6,800 15,900 131 512 88 499 192 259 —
Franklin 95,000 10,500 23,700 82 695 33 368 360 * —
Greene 241,600 20,700 49,900 284 2,763 9 1,070 252 891 —
Jackson 657,200 66,300 158,500 1,387 2,505 525 617 634 215 —
Jasper 105,800 10,300 25,500 211 563 106 1,199 249 209 —
Jefferson 201,500 22,400 51,200 158 1,302 67 485 112 14 —
Platte 76,000 7,700 18,100 36 214 7 45 16 0 —
St. Charles 295,000 33,800 78,400 248 1,834 67 770 54 37 —
St. Francois 56,100 5,500 12,300 80 282 10 134 19 7 —
St. Louis 1,016,700 103,500 234,900 1,712 6,170 270 3,119 991 541 —
St. Louis City 348,000 34,500 83,200 1,225 3,190 221 988 821 267 —
99 Small Counties 1,913,400 196,200 442,400 2,712 12,713 918 9,784 1,744 4,244 —
Number of Reported Cases 9,259 35,704 2,901 21,420 5,761 7,235 —
Population Represented 5,642,600 573,500 1,324,500 573,500 573,500 573,500 573,500 1,324,500 1,324,500 —
Montana – 56 Counties
Cascade 79,900 9,500 20,000 254 1,266 14 516 — — —
Flathead 76,100 9,400 18,800 8 1,145 * 75 — — —


Gallatin 69,800 6,800 14,600 97 267 8 27 — — —

Missoula 96,700 10,200 21,100 244 830 78 457 — — —
Yellowstone 130,600 15,100 32,000 317 794 0 * — — —
51 Small Counties 453,100 58,400 113,600 426 3,140 20 1,051 — — —
Nebraska – 93 Counties
Buffalo 42,300 4,800 10,300 165 — 78 — 62 — —
Dodge 36,100 4,100 8,700 52 — 20 — 43 — —
Douglas 467,800 54,600 123,100 940 — 322 — 693 — —
Hall 53,600 6,300 14,300 223 — 42 — 77 — —
Lancaster 253,200 25,700 59,000 508 — 137 — 0 — —
Sarpy 126,200 16,900 37,800 119 — 52 — * — —
Scotts Bluff 36,600 4,300 9,300 205 — 93 — 55 — —
86 Small Counties 702,900 89,600 180,500 1,957 — 1,001 — 458 — —
Nevada – 17 Counties
Churchill 24,500 3,200 7,300 220 183 58 127 — — —
Clark 1,456,300 160,000 384,800 2,864 6,647 304 3,357 — — —
Douglas 42,200 5,400 10,000 222 426 15 131 — — —
Elko 45,300 6,900 14,700 197 314 * 141 — — —
Esmeralda 1,000 100 200 7 * 0 0 — — —
Humboldt 16,000 2,400 5,000 46 46 0 56 — — —
Mineral 4,900 600 1,200 41 11 21 17 — — —
Storey 3,400 400 700 12 15 * * — — —
Washoe 351,700 39,500 89,900 1,430 3,179 133 1,706 — — —
White Pine 8,700 1,000 2,100 71 * * * — — —
7 Small Counties 141,400 17,100 35,800 823 897 200 368 — — —
New Hampshire – 10 Counties

Cheshire 74,500 7,600 15,800 464 — 171 — 75 — —
Grafton 82,300 7,700 16,300 337 — 106 — 64 — —
Hillsborough 388,700 41,300 95,100 2,031 — 301 — 269 — —
Merrimack 138,800 14,500 31,700 762 — 106 — 79 — —
Rockingham 283,800 31,100 69,300 1,331 — 198 — 236 — —
Strafford 114,500 11,100 25,000 710 — 169 — 122 — —
4 Small Counties 176,600 17,800 37,300 1,143 — 201 — 255 — —
New Jersey – 21 Counties

Atlantic 255,600 29,300 64,600 2,578 — — — — — —
Bergen 891,200 91,400 204,400 2,104 — — — — — —
Burlington 430,300 50,300 107,400 1,792 — — — — — —
Camden 509,600 64,000 135,700 3,247 — — — — — —
Cape May 102,100 11,300 22,700 882 — — — — — —


Cumberland 146,900 17,400 37,200 2,073 — — — — — —

Essex 794,800 90,700 207,700 6,874 — — — — — —
Gloucester 258,100 32,100 67,000 1,651 — — — — — —
Hudson 613,000 60,400 138,900 2,719 — — — — — —
Hunterdon 125,000 14,600 31,600 322 — — — — — —
Mercer 354,700 38,700 85,300 2,139 — — — — — —
Middlesex 762,100 79,400 180,600 2,734 — — — — — —
Monmouth 622,700 73,500 161,300 2,675 — — — — — —
Morris 474,200 51,200 118,000 1,251 — — — — — —
Ocean 524,300 55,100 122,100 1,719 — — — — — —
Passaic 494,700 55,500 129,700 2,369 — — — — — —
Salem 64,300 7,900 16,200 638 — — — — — —
Somerset 303,300 32,900 78,000 522 — — — — — —
Sussex 146,600 19,300 40,300 689 — — — — — —
Union 527,000 57,500 131,900 2,364 — — — — — —
Warren 105,700 12,500 27,200 503 — — — — — —
Population Represented 8,506,300 945,000 2,107,900 945,000 — — — — — —
New Mexico – 33 Districts

Bernalillo 562,700 63,100 140,500 3,208 4,384 51 292 — — —
Chaves 61,100 8,200 17,200 183 664 13 442 — — —
Dona Ana 176,600 23,500 51,300 421 1,243 8 393 — — —
Eddy 50,900 6,700 14,200 208 416 21 151 — — —
Lea 55,000 7,700 16,200 292 565 15 206 — — —
McKinley 75,100 13,400 28,000 197 881 22 227 — — —
Otero 61,500 8,500 17,800 256 523 — 100 — — —
Sandoval 92,800 12,800 26,800 345 604 8 119 — — —
San Juan 116,200 17,900 37,200 520 703 23 221 — — —
Santa Fe 131,300 14,700 30,800 389 846 10 109 — — —
Valencia 67,400 9,300 19,700 178 533 — 19 — — —
22 Small Districts 381,800 48,800 101,400 2,019 2,720 58 817 — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 35.02 60.03 1.16 13.26 — — —
New York – 62 Counties

Albany 294,700 23,200 57,500 423 244 273 254 1,014 — —
Allegany 50,300 4,500 10,300 50 71 54 71 136 — —
Bronx 1,346,700 131,000 357,700 1,451 341 548 1,879 3,404 — —
Broome 199,900 16,600 39,800 223 169 151 252 290 — —
Cattaraugus 83,400 7,900 18,400 118 88 99 151 326 — —
Cayuga 81,600 7,400 17,300 79 52 41 138 124 — —
Chautauqua 138,900 12,100 28,900 289 146 122 260 177 — —
Chemung 90,800 7,900 19,100 122 39 162 45 266 — —
Chenango 51,300 4,900 11,300 46 61 49 54 66 — —
Clinton 80,300 6,700 15,500 16 72 12 102 108 — —
Columbia 62,900 5,700 12,800 54 60 55 85 457 — —
Dutchess 284,700 25,100 62,000 263 180 192 273 270 — —
Erie 945,300 80,400 198,900 872 650 573 703 1,136 — —
Fulton 54,900 4,900 11,500 45 54 109 66 290 — —
Genesee 60,000 5,700 13,400 80 36 54 44 42 — —
Herkimer 64,200 5,500 13,200 57 94 57 121 67 — —
Jefferson 112,700 9,800 26,300 134 81 77 138 196 — —
Kings 2,477,900 218,300 584,100 2,169 207 1,004 638 1,924 — —
Livingston 64,600 5,400 12,600 72 64 55 75 62 — —
Madison 69,700 6,200 14,600 40 59 113 53 172 — —
Monroe 734,600 66,700 164,300 664 904 417 354 747 — —
Montgomery 49,400 4,200 10,400 70 57 32 33 170 — —
Nassau 1,337,000 112,200 288,900 651 396 329 634 698 — —


New York 1,551,500 82,600 234,900 1,353 102 172 365 2,206 — —
Niagara 218,700 19,300 46,500 220 234 239 346 208 — —
Oneida 234,300 20,100 48,000 156 293 232 219 354 — —
Onondaga 458,400 41,100 103,100 1,183 363 449 293 628 — —
Ontario 101,100 9,200 22,000 77 187 20 85 113 — —
Orange 349,400 34,900 88,600 290 109 221 124 424 — —
Oswego 122,500 11,800 27,800 197 84 92 192 166 — —
Otsego 61,800 5,100 11,400 22 41 14 53 83 — —
Putnam 97,400 8,800 22,400 33 33 45 9 20 — —
Queens 2,241,200 165,300 449,100 863 234 514 593 1,814 — —
Rensselaer 152,400 13,000 32,000 178 — 243 — 196 — —
Richmond 450,700 39,100 100,300 263 50 128 205 290 — —
Rockland 289,300 27,200 71,100 164 32 103 31 181 — —
St. Lawrence 111,400 9,300 21,900 47 234 52 150 235 — —
Saratoga 204,300 17,500 44,100 185 132 195 55 374 — —
Schenectady 146,200 12,500 31,200 77 115 126 147 565 — —
Steuben 99,300 9,300 22,000 104 — 95 — 199 — —
Suffolk 1,442,000 126,300 331,900 950 407 614 621 2,144 — —
Sullivan 74,000 6,600 15,700 51 — 76 — 156 — —
Tioga 51,600 5,100 11,800 58 23 38 31 149 — —
Tompkins 97,500 6,400 15,300 50 66 60 113 134 — —
Ulster 178,700 15,200 36,000 191 — 200 — 267 — —
Warren 63,600 5,600 13,000 34 42 68 65 52 — —
Washington 61,300 5,600 12,800 58 68 43 156 122 — —
Wayne 93,900 9,200 22,100 104 124 52 121 182 — —
Westchester 933,200 77,300 207,600 579 — 311 — 558 — —
13 Small Counties 464,200 40,300 94,100 400 396 471 396 714 — —
North Carolina – 100 Counties

Alamance 133,600 11,200 28,900 504 286 35 10 49 * —
Brunswick 76,400 5,800 14,500 201 138 13 13 44 29 —
Buncombe 208,400 16,200 41,000 385 391 190 84 206 34 —
Burke 89,400 7,600 19,000 247 128 41 8 79 * —
Cabarrus 136,300 12,000 31,900 466 179 38 55 37 * —
Caldwell 78,200 6,300 16,600 127 134 29 25 99 79 —
Carteret 59,800 4,500 10,800 222 67 * 14 146 62 —
Catawba 145,400 12,000 31,900 313 298 123 54 190 102 —
Cleveland 97,200 8,700 22,200 491 144 17 45 90 28 —
Columbus 54,700 4,900 12,400 181 74 22 18 11 0 —
Craven 92,300 7,400 20,900 564 171 26 30 33 16 —
Cumberland 302,400 28,200 78,700 1,063 425 64 26 280 341 —
Davidson 149,400 12,600 32,500 405 288 46 29 98 19 —
Durham 229,200 17,100 48,800 517 310 74 78 65 19 —
Edgecombe 55,300 5,400 13,300 258 207 12 * 159 18 —
Forsyth 310,800 25,300 68,000 824 339 91 33 219 33 —
Gaston 192,000 16,500 42,800 575 348 212 80 98 17 —
Guilford 427,400 34,800 92,600 1,846 718 126 42 277 19 —
Halifax 56,800 5,300 13,100 376 171 10 13 34 27 —
Harnett 94,000 8,500 23,000 388 264 10 13 515 298 —
Henderson 91,000 6,700 17,100 235 180 10 20 32 19 —
Iredell 127,300 11,200 29,500 378 38 12 0 118 26 —
Johnston 127,900 10,800 30,500 329 133 15 7 108 58 —
Lenoir 59,200 5,200 13,300 211 74 31 54 84 15 —
Lincoln 65,100 5,700 14,600 175 91 38 19 39 14 —
Mecklenburg 719,400 59,800 165,900 2,576 1,414 424 113 434 162 —
Moore 76,400 6,100 15,100 247 71 15 8 74 * —
Nash 88,300 7,800 20,200 276 242 7 * 63 24 —
New Hanover 163,100 11,700 30,800 900 477 23 117 394 38 —
Onslow 148,100 11,900 37,000 498 715 48 173 120 * —
Orange 117,500 8,900 21,800 175 101 8 14 68 * —


Pitt 135,100 11,000 28,800 582 193 6 20 78 16 —

Randolph 132,400 11,600 30,000 355 153 70 12 48 18 —
Robeson 124,000 12,100 32,000 832 523 123 20 247 76 —
Rockingham 92,200 7,500 19,400 231 110 20 29 43 12 —
Rowan 132,400 11,600 29,400 522 237 105 52 120 30 —
Rutherford 63,400 5,200 13,600 134 97 18 6 352 80 —
Stanly 58,600 5,300 13,100 176 71 * * 15 * —
Surry 71,700 5,900 15,200 258 88 27 54 17 9 —
Union 132,000 12,300 33,800 464 95 18 8 76 47 —
Wake 657,200 55,200 151,600 1,566 524 158 160 159 * —
Wayne 113,200 10,200 26,600 523 239 55 78 122 28 —
Wilkes 66,400 5,100 13,500 269 89 51 47 263 8 —
Wilson 74,200 6,400 16,900 312 163 * * 62 6 —
56 Small Counties 1,573,100 130,300 331,000 5,002 2,560 682 607 2,373 504 —
North Dakota – 53 Counties

Burleigh 70,100 7,800 16,400 103 556 37 552 0 13 —
Cass 124,300 12,300 27,900 269 601 103 492 0 * —
Grand Forks 65,200 6,800 14,800 228 440 132 464 * 0 —
Ward 57,600 6,500 14,600 96 392 42 510 7 0 —
49 Small Counties 319,100 40,600 77,600 498 1,699 247 2,100 33 41 —
Number of Reported Cases 1,194 3,688 561 4,118 41 58 —
Population Represented 636,300 74,000 151,200 74,000 74,000 74,000 74,000 151,200 151,200 —
Ohio – 88 Counties
Allen 108,200 13,000 27,800 1,059 — 313 — 415 — —
Ashtabula 103,000 12,600 26,400 690 — 680 — 37 — —
Athens 62,700 5,100 11,100 407 — 113 — 45 — —
Belmont 69,500 7,400 14,600 612 — 146 — 80 — —
Butler 337,000 39,200 85,900 3,197 — 968 — 488 — —
Clark 144,100 16,500 35,700 2,205 — 289 — 346 — —
Clermont 180,900 22,500 49,500 1,467 — 95 — 132 — —
Columbiana 111,700 13,000 26,500 524 — 151 — 104 — —
Cuyahoga 1,383,100 155,400 340,200 9,173 1,160 809 1,664 6,719 — —
Darke 53,100 6,500 13,600 456 — 123 — 59 — —
Delaware 119,300 14,400 32,700 466 — 80 — 95 — —
Erie 79,400 9,200 19,200 1,855 — 975 — 107 — —
Fairfield 126,300 15,400 33,000 607 — 120 — 311 — —
Franklin 1,078,900 115,200 270,500 6,978 — 1,225 — 4,088 — —
Geauga 91,800 12,300 25,100 356 — 46 — 26 — —
Greene 148,600 16,700 34,600 1,228 — 182 — 112 — —
Hamilton 838,900 99,600 212,900 18,154 — 2,443 — 640 — —
Hancock 72,000 8,300 18,100 857 — 286 — 42 — —
Huron 59,600 7,600 16,500 561 — 197 — 121 — —
Jefferson 73,000 7,400 15,300 380 — 197 — 173 — —
Lake 229,100 25,600 54,200 1,856 — 615 — 213 — —
Lawrence 62,100 7,100 14,900 399 — 223 — 59 — —
Licking 147,400 17,400 37,700 1,345 — 331 — 495 — —
Lorain 286,100 33,400 74,000 2,465 — 156 — 512 — —
Lucas 454,700 54,100 118,200 6,426 — 548 — 502 — —
Mahoning 255,100 28,000 59,400 1,368 — 322 — 366 — —
Marion 66,100 7,900 16,100 1,836 — 96 — 240 — —
Medina 154,800 19,300 41,400 1,113 — 159 — 60 — —
Miami 99,300 12,100 25,100 1,835 — 437 — 176 — —
Montgomery 555,500 61,500 135,500 4,358 — 1,073 — 1,202 — —
Muskingum 84,800 10,100 21,600 1,005 — 284 — 133 — —
Portage 152,800 16,500 35,400 949 — 88 — 195 — —


Richland 128,000 14,600 31,300 2,799 — 527 — 241 — —

Ross 73,900 8,200 17,400 702 — 266 — 109 — —
Sandusky 61,800 7,600 15,900 567 — 95 — 140 — —
Scioto 78,500 9,000 18,800 596 — 118 — 96 — —
Seneca 58,400 7,200 14,800 981 — 202 — 64 — —
Stark 378,700 43,400 92,800 2,687 — 336 — 1,014 — —
Summit 545,300 61,300 134,500 4,229 — 2,234 — 917 — —
Trumbull 224,400 25,400 53,500 2,084 — 438 — 421 — —
Tuscarawas 91,200 10,600 22,600 906 — 177 — 55 — —
Warren 167,500 20,000 45,400 1,468 — 216 — 86 — —
Washington 62,800 6,900 14,400 469 — 73 — 23 — —
Wayne 112,300 14,200 30,000 673 — 134 — 243 — —
Wood 122,000 13,500 27,900 1,365 — 232 — 216 — —
43 Small Counties 1,494,000 183,400 386,100 14,557 — 4,292 — 1,923 — —
Population Represented 11,387,900 1,315,200 2,847,900 1,315,200 155,400 1,315,200 155,400 2,847,900 — —
Oklahoma – 77 Counties
Adair 21,200 2,900 6,300 16 51 0 31 — — —
Alfalfa 6,000 600 1,100 7 16 0 19 — — —
Atoka 13,900 1,500 3,200 7 33 0 * — — —
Beaver 5,600 700 1,400 6 7 0 * — — —
Beckham 19,900 2,200 4,600 51 63 * 38 — — —
Blaine 12,100 1,400 2,800 42 60 * 32 — — —
Bryan 36,700 4,100 8,900 45 115 0 * — — —
Caddo 30,000 4,100 8,300 112 108 16 120 — — —
Canadian 89,700 11,900 24,100 134 161 21 16 — — —
Carter 45,700 5,500 11,700 54 212 * 26 — — —
Cherokee 42,900 5,100 11,000 88 128 14 56 — — —
Choctaw 15,200 1,900 3,900 18 18 0 * — — —
Cimarron 3,100 400 800 * 6 0 0 — — —
Cleveland 212,200 23,700 50,200 278 878 24 281 — — —
Coal 6,100 700 1,600 8 31 0 14 — — —
Comanche 112,200 13,400 31,400 275 578 * 910 — — —
Cotton 6,500 700 1,600 10 43 0 * — — —
Craig 14,800 1,700 3,500 15 49 0 11 — — —
Creek 68,100 8,700 18,100 41 89 0 * — — —
Custer 25,600 2,800 5,900 84 63 * * — — —
Delaware 37,700 4,400 9,100 40 76 * 21 — — —
Dewey 4,600 500 1,000 * * 0 * — — —
Ellis 3,900 400 800 * 8 0 0 — — —
Garfield 57,300 6,400 14,100 116 70 * * — — —
Garvin 27,100 3,100 6,600 60 102 11 46 — — —
Grady 45,900 5,700 11,800 109 83 40 48 — — —
Grant 5,100 700 1,200 6 21 * 0 — — —
Greer 5,900 500 1,100 10 12 0 7 — — —
Harmon 3,200 400 800 6 6 0 * — — —
Harper 3,400 400 800 12 * 0 0 — — —
Haskell 11,800 1,300 3,000 8 8 0 0 — — —
Hughes 13,900 1,500 3,100 22 51 0 * — — —
Jackson 27,900 3,500 8,100 48 86 0 16 — — —
Jefferson 6,600 700 1,500 10 40 0 * — — —
Johnston 10,400 1,200 2,600 7 8 * * — — —
Kay 47,500 5,700 12,300 139 153 0 * — — —
Kingfisher 13,900 1,800 3,600 * 24 * 7 — — —
Kiowa 10,100 1,200 2,400 38 41 * 16 — — —
Latimer 10,600 1,200 2,600 23 49 0 * — — —
Le Flore 48,200 5,700 12,500 24 108 * 25 — — —
Lincoln 32,100 4,200 8,500 14 62 0 * — — —
Logan 34,600 4,200 8,400 76 134 * 24 — — —
Love 8,800 1,100 2,200 * 19 0 * — — —
McClain 27,900 3,500 7,200 64 90 0 28 — — —


McCurtain 34,200 4,400 9,400 39 106 6 50 — — —

McIntosh 19,600 2,200 4,300 40 84 7 38 — — —
Major 7,500 900 1,800 * 9 * * — — —
Marshall 13,300 1,400 3,000 9 63 * * — — —
Mayes 38,500 4,800 10,100 40 134 * 77 — — —
Murray 12,700 1,400 2,900 11 36 0 6 — — —
Muskogee 69,800 8,100 17,700 123 62 20 35 — — —
Noble 11,400 1,300 2,800 23 7 * * — — —
Nowata 10,600 1,300 2,700 25 20 * 6 — — —
Okfuskee 11,700 1,300 2,700 40 40 0 * — — —
Oklahoma 664,800 73,200 168,600 2,135 904 154 76 — — —
Okmulgee 39,700 5,000 10,500 81 56 7 28 — — —
Osage 45,100 5,700 11,400 64 69 * 36 — — —
Ottawa 33,200 3,900 8,400 77 135 * 141 — — —
Pawnee 16,900 2,200 4,400 20 44 0 8 — — —
Payne 69,200 5,800 12,900 117 159 20 19 — — —
Pittsburg 43,600 4,900 10,000 70 173 0 19 — — —
Pontotoc 34,800 4,000 8,400 55 149 * 46 — — —
Pottawatomie 66,300 7,700 16,800 139 238 9 82 — — —
Pushmataha 11,700 1,500 3,000 9 29 0 * — — —
Roger Mills 3,300 400 800 * * 0 * — — —
Rogers 73,300 9,900 20,400 113 204 8 92 — — —
Seminole 24,700 3,100 6,400 77 105 * 13 — — —
Sequoyah 39,300 4,900 10,600 39 101 0 26 — — —
Stephens 42,800 5,000 10,300 33 117 0 51 — — —
Texas 20,100 2,400 5,700 30 70 0 8 — — —
Tillman 9,300 1,200 2,400 28 75 0 6 — — —
Tulsa 566,400 64,300 147,500 2,049 2,704 150 544 — — —
Wagoner 58,900 7,600 16,000 101 171 34 33 — — —
Washington 49,000 5,900 12,000 146 290 14 112 — — —
Washita 11,400 1,500 2,900 8 22 0 13 — — —
Woods 8,800 800 1,600 6 35 * 7 — — —
Woodward 18,400 2,200 4,600 65 55 9 24 — — —
Oregon – 36 Counties
Benton 77,800 8,100 16,300 — — — — — — 298
Clackamas 345,400 42,800 89,200 — — — — — — 1,168
Coos 62,400 7,000 13,400 — — — — — — 678
Deschutes 120,800 14,300 29,500 — — — — — — 671
Douglas 100,400 11,900 23,700 — — — — — — 711
Jackson 184,000 21,500 44,400 — — — — — — 1,149
Josephine 76,500 8,800 17,500 — — — — — — 597
Klamath 64,200 7,800 16,400 — — — — — — 678
Lane 324,500 35,100 73,500 — — — — — — 1,196
Linn 103,900 12,500 26,700 — — — — — — 688
Marion 289,400 34,800 78,900 — — — — — — 2,248
Multnomah 668,600 64,900 150,400 — — — — — — 2,715
Polk 63,800 7,700 15,900 — — — — — — 482
Umatilla 71,400 8,700 19,500 — — — — — — 532
Washington 462,600 52,300 124,200 — — — — — — 1,100
Yamhill 86,400 10,700 22,900 — — — — — — 933
20 Small Counties 371,900 45,400 91,700 — — — — — — 3,800
Population Represented 3,474,200 394,500 854,000 — — — — — — 394,500
Rates for Reporting Counties — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties — — — — — — 36


Pennsylvania – 67 Counties
Adams 92,900 11,000 22,600 254 60 — — — — —
Allegheny 1,272,800 130,100 276,000 2,665 588 — — — — —
Armstrong 72,000 7,900 16,100 70 54 — — — — —
Beaver 180,000 19,400 40,000 397 178 — — — — —
Bedford 49,900 5,500 11,500 52 9 — — — — —
Berks 377,800 43,100 91,900 1,091 179 — — — — —
Blair 128,500 13,700 28,600 247 74 — — — — —
Bradford 62,700 7,700 15,600 130 15 — — — — —
Bucks 604,300 72,600 151,800 1,420 525 — — — — —
Butler 176,100 19,700 42,500 377 31 — — — — —
Cambria 151,300 15,200 31,100 477 25 — — — — —
Carbon 59,200 6,500 12,900 152 72 — — — — —
Centre 136,200 11,200 23,800 180 0 — — — — —
Chester 442,400 52,900 113,800 2,554 912 — — — — —
Clearfield 83,200 9,000 18,300 163 21 — — — — —
Columbia 64,300 6,400 12,900 142 48 — — — — —
Crawford 90,200 10,500 21,800 266 36 — — — — —
Cumberland 215,200 22,300 46,500 313 194 — — — — —
Dauphin 251,700 28,200 60,800 1,213 188 — — — — —
Delaware 553,200 64,200 135,400 1,589 0 — — — — —
Erie 281,600 32,700 69,300 916 176 — — — — —
Fayette 147,300 15,700 32,800 200 276 — — — — —
Franklin 130,300 14,400 30,900 368 122 — — — — —
Indiana 89,300 9,000 18,100 171 23 — — — — —
Jefferson 45,800 5,200 10,500 66 38 — — — — —
Lackawanna 212,200 22,100 45,500 361 76 — — — — —
Lancaster 474,700 57,400 125,000 960 378 — — — — —
Lawrence 94,000 10,300 21,400 163 54 — — — — —
Lebanon 121,000 13,200 28,100 445 67 — — — — —
Lehigh 315,000 35,400 74,900 1,043 32 — — — — —
Luzerne 316,000 32,400 65,300 446 220 — — — — —
Lycoming 119,300 13,400 27,200 355 13 — — — — —
McKean 45,300 5,200 10,500 101 18 — — — — —
Mercer 120,000 13,600 27,600 257 66 — — — — —
Mifflin 46,500 5,400 11,300 68 * — — — — —
Monroe 144,000 19,000 37,800 294 43 — — — — —
Montgomery 758,500 83,900 181,100 1,176 484 — — — — —
Northampton 269,600 30,000 61,800 477 310 — — — — —
Northumberland 93,800 10,300 20,100 269 200 — — — — —
Philadelphia 1,498,600 172,300 374,000 9,764 2,578 — — — — —
Schuylkill 149,300 15,100 30,400 132 182 — — — — —
Somerset 79,500 8,600 17,300 153 12 — — — — —
Venango 57,200 6,800 13,600 138 * — — — — —
Warren 43,700 5,200 10,300 89 * — — — — —
Washington 203,600 21,000 44,300 226 139 — — — — —
Westmoreland 369,200 39,000 79,300 538 54 — — — — —
York 385,800 44,400 93,600 635 354 — — — — —
20 Small Counties 623,100 71,500 144,000 1,344 190 — — — — —
Population Represented 12,298,500 1,369,800 2,880,100 1,369,800 1,369,800 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 25.48 6.81 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 — — — — —
Rhode Island – 1 State

State Total 1,058,600 113,300 244,600 — — — — — — 7,609
Rates for Reporting State — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting States — — — — — — 1


South Carolina – 46 Counties

Aiken 143,700 15,300 35,100 354 338 88 39 — — —
Anderson 168,800 16,500 39,200 518 396 * 6 — — —
Beaufort 125,400 11,100 27,800 152 236 13 22 — — —
Berkeley 144,200 16,500 37,700 254 608 97 80 — — —
Charleston 312,600 29,700 70,200 673 1,623 39 92 — — —
Darlington 67,600 7,000 16,700 183 322 127 85 — — —
Dorchester 98,600 12,200 26,300 193 222 85 15 — — —
Florence 126,400 13,400 30,500 125 798 19 188 — — —
Greenville 386,500 37,400 89,800 507 1,009 149 196 — — —
Greenwood 66,800 6,600 16,000 124 235 32 22 — — —
Horry 201,700 17,100 40,700 821 957 128 159 — — —
Lancaster 61,700 6,300 14,700 122 451 * 65 — — —
Laurens 70,000 7,200 16,500 132 152 31 10 — — —
Lexington 220,100 22,900 53,700 350 1,089 196 94 — — —
Oconee 67,000 6,200 14,300 69 144 * 9 — — —
Orangeburg 91,300 9,600 21,900 303 430 183 32 — — —
Pickens 111,500 9,800 23,300 157 240 94 17 — — —
Richland 323,800 31,500 73,600 742 248 64 19 — — —
Spartanburg 256,900 25,300 60,000 364 707 108 116 — — —
Sumter 104,500 11,700 27,600 100 230 10 82 — — —
York 169,600 18,100 41,700 329 558 * 260 — — —
25 Small Counties 742,400 79,000 180,300 1,464 2,261 495 461 — — —
South Dakota – 66 Counties

Beadle 16,800 2,000 4,000 82 14 50 53 — — —
Brookings 28,200 2,600 5,600 80 14 17 24 — — —
Brown 35,100 3,700 8,000 98 59 49 53 — — —
Codington 25,900 3,100 6,700 93 62 31 * — — —
Davison 18,700 2,200 4,600 84 41 60 53 — — —
Hughes 16,400 2,200 4,400 53 74 24 84 — — —
Lawrence 21,700 2,600 4,800 82 9 32 * — — —
Lincoln 26,200 3,400 7,500 147 35 69 35 — — —
Meade 24,300 3,100 6,700 120 * 26 0 — — —
Minnehaha 151,000 17,300 38,800 927 407 496 364 — — —
Pennington 90,000 10,900 23,500 715 14 278 * — — —
Yankton 21,500 2,500 5,300 130 13 67 71 — — —
54 Small Counties 282,500 39,000 77,700 593 161 403 353 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 3,204 904 1,602 1,096 — — —
Tennessee – 95 Counties
Anderson 71,500 7,800 16,300 458 0 83 * * 0 —
Blount 108,000 11,400 24,400 667 313 269 97 21 24 —
Bradley 88,900 9,200 20,700 68 839 15 437 0 * —
Carter 56,900 5,700 11,900 391 35 198 25 84 * —
Davidson 571,300 52,800 127,300 4,601 5,161 691 982 1,420 1,336 —
Greene 63,400 6,400 13,900 261 270 102 35 21 24 —
Hamblen 58,800 5,900 13,600 316 227 86 128 38 27 —
Hamilton 308,600 33,000 70,900 760 1,569 487 573 54 123 —
Knox 387,100 38,300 85,700 1,322 633 197 165 429 52 —
Madison 92,900 10,600 23,600 530 105 38 163 0 0 —
Maury 70,300 8,500 18,200 769 73 328 33 41 34 —
Montgomery 135,600 16,300 39,200 375 614 171 184 6 * —
Putnam 63,100 6,300 13,900 632 228 107 114 24 12 —


Rutherford 189,400 21,500 49,500 691 249 330 33 0 0 —

Sevier 73,100 7,700 16,500 416 663 197 210 28 98 —
Shelby 898,900 111,700 250,400 10,678 1,181 4,213 0 1,774 0 —
Sullivan 152,500 15,300 32,800 502 646 123 221 204 34 —
Sumner 133,800 16,200 34,500 886 593 483 174 25 65 —
Washington 107,500 10,100 22,800 385 455 125 112 34 53 —
Williamson 132,500 18,200 37,900 804 617 328 129 55 25 —
Wilson 91,400 11,000 23,600 496 431 109 114 37 18 —
74 Small Counties 1,892,400 209,100 449,300 10,178 3,321 4,420 2,040 763 446 —
Texas – 254 Counties

Anderson 54,200 4,600 10,800 167 129 33 37 — — —
Angelina 80,300 8,800 21,000 151 159 * 9 — — —
Bell 240,700 25,600 68,900 568 592 24 294 — — —
Bexar 1,415,600 156,100 383,100 6,043 1,830 1,042 368 — — —
Bowie 89,400 8,900 20,900 102 554 0 95 — — —
Brazoria 249,200 28,000 67,200 883 783 24 285 — — —
Brazos 152,000 12,200 30,900 610 592 63 106 — — —
Cameron 344,300 44,100 110,600 1,012 513 17 244 — — —
Collin 537,800 57,100 147,800 662 621 30 155 — — —
Comal 81,700 9,000 19,600 219 146 24 43 — — —
Coryell 74,600 7,500 19,200 88 100 * 66 — — —
Dallas 2,261,900 234,700 605,700 4,171 4,465 8 1,125 — — —
Denton 463,600 48,600 123,000 1,032 453 128 127 — — —
Ector 120,900 14,700 34,600 206 717 0 30 — — —
Ellis 116,000 14,600 32,700 167 189 0 13 — — —
El Paso 687,500 85,000 208,400 1,869 560 * * — — —
Fort Bend 376,600 50,400 110,700 734 676 75 125 — — —
Galveston 254,900 27,300 64,300 880 461 20 95 — — —
Grayson 112,600 11,700 26,800 138 259 0 8 — — —
Gregg 111,900 11,900 28,300 332 398 14 113 — — —
Guadalupe 92,200 10,700 24,400 215 480 8 69 — — —
Harris 3,472,800 380,400 958,300 9,953 2,825 7 4,145 — — —
Harrison 62,400 7,100 15,400 206 112 57 20 — — —
Hays 104,500 10,500 24,100 246 352 12 99 — — —
Henderson 74,300 7,400 17,100 189 116 17 25 — — —
Hidalgo 591,300 77,000 199,200 836 986 54 166 — — —
Hunt 78,100 8,500 19,400 250 154 * 42 — — —
Jefferson 249,600 25,900 60,700 472 954 21 249 — — —
Johnson 132,200 15,600 35,500 238 210 8 30 — — —
Kaufman 75,500 9,100 20,500 84 212 * 25 — — —
Liberty 71,900 8,100 18,800 34 198 * 43 — — —
Lubbock 245,700 24,500 59,600 945 844 89 189 — — —
McLennan 215,500 22,800 54,100 962 791 35 252 — — —
Midland 116,100 14,500 32,600 397 347 * * — — —
Montgomery 312,700 36,800 86,200 499 720 29 145 — — —
Nacogdoches 59,400 5,700 13,500 101 98 * 148 — — —
Nueces 312,500 34,700 83,400 771 1,515 78 838 — — —
Orange 84,500 9,400 21,400 159 162 * 37 — — —
Parker 92,000 11,000 23,400 81 173 * 207 — — —
Potter 114,600 12,000 30,900 337 593 11 202 — — —
Randall 105,600 11,100 25,600 247 202 27 50 — — —
San Patricio 67,000 8,300 19,600 161 204 * 98 — — —
Smith 177,600 18,900 44,600 561 264 31 52 — — —
Tarrant 1,488,900 161,400 400,800 3,992 2,695 305 617 — — —
Taylor 125,300 13,200 31,700 211 531 0 11 — — —
Tom Green 103,400 10,900 25,400 394 352 41 90 — — —
Travis 842,600 73,400 194,300 1,613 2,511 56 289 — — —
Victoria 84,800 9,900 23,100 156 924 45 186 — — —
Walker 61,900 4,300 10,200 75 72 0 * — — —


Webb 200,800 26,100 69,700 525 881 12 215 — — —

Wichita 129,300 12,700 30,900 400 550 * 22 — — —
Williamson 276,700 31,800 78,600 546 403 19 108 — — —
202 Small Counties 3,287,600 367,100 827,400 6,281 7,794 321 3,406 — — —
Utah – 29 Counties
Cache 93,600 11,900 29,000 567 446 117 768 83 8 —
Davis 244,300 37,800 84,700 1,340 1,250 254 786 202 15 —
Salt Lake 910,100 118,200 276,300 8,323 4,472 2,217 1,855 831 18 —
Utah 382,500 51,600 130,500 2,790 1,295 1,045 486 267 90 —
Washington 94,600 12,800 29,200 669 672 410 390 101 * —
Weber 200,200 26,700 61,800 1,621 1,745 451 1,237 678 * —
23 Small Counties 355,900 55,100 118,300 2,788 2,113 1,392 1,608 499 11 —
Population Represented 2,281,200 314,200 729,800 314,200 314,200 314,200 314,200 729,800 729,800 —
Vermont – 14 Counties
Chittenden 147,800 15,900 33,300 387 — 24 — 240 — —
Rutland 63,300 7,200 14,100 139 — 54 — 39 — —
Washington 58,500 6,700 13,100 99 — 15 — 20 — —
Windsor 57,600 6,800 12,800 136 — 14 — 51 — —
10 Small Counties 285,700 34,600 68,200 750 — 116 — 198 — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,511 — 223 — 548 — —
Population Represented 613,000 71,200 141,600 71,200 — 71,200 — 141,600 — —
Virginia – 134 Counties

Albemarle 85,800 9,400 19,900 325 95 61 42 — — —
Arlington 189,500 12,100 32,100 904 14 102 15 — — —
Augusta 66,300 7,600 15,400 373 19 79 13 — — —
Chesterfield 265,500 36,100 73,600 1,883 1,379 50 510 — — —
Fairfax 986,300 111,000 251,100 2,484 392 455 263 — — —
Fauquier 57,400 7,400 15,100 263 24 20 * — — —
Hanover 89,000 11,400 23,600 525 71 56 23 — — —
Henrico 265,900 28,700 65,600 1,514 343 189 31 — — —
Henry 57,600 6,100 12,600 261 132 34 53 — — —
Loudoun 190,100 21,700 56,600 778 167 43 108 — — —
Montgomery 84,000 6,300 14,100 306 31 57 6 — — —
Pittsylvania 62,000 6,900 14,000 293 24 63 7 — — —
Prince William 297,600 39,300 90,200 2,056 375 161 * — — —
Roanoke 86,000 9,500 19,200 585 44 39 206 — — —
Rockingham 68,400 7,900 16,700 228 47 51 0 — — —
Spotsylvania 96,700 13,200 28,400 784 91 153 92 — — —
Stafford 98,400 14,300 30,500 822 278 59 65 — — —
Alexandria City 130,400 7,700 22,800 607 95 149 118 — — —
Chesapeake City 203,000 27,500 57,500 1,591 127 57 20 — — —
Danville City 47,700 5,200 11,000 506 150 45 93 — — —
Hampton City 145,100 16,200 35,200 891 425 66 258 — — —
Lynchburg City 64,700 6,500 14,300 769 6 205 * — — —
Newport News City 179,600 21,500 50,700 1,285 127 212 70 — — —
Norfolk City 233,500 23,500 56,900 1,870 365 550 265 — — —
Portsmouth City 99,600 11,300 25,600 743 61 25 136 — — —
Richmond City 197,400 18,200 43,200 1,845 229 78 27 — — —


Roanoke City 94,500 9,100 21,700 1,064 191 158 8 — — —

Suffolk City 66,700 8,600 18,400 459 15 8 0 — — —
Virginia Beach City 427,800 53,800 117,800 2,124 343 77 109 — — —
105 Small Counties 2,249,000 241,000 505,800 14,355 1,768 2,156 1,001 — — —
Washington – 39 Counties
Benton 145,900 20,000 42,100 749 1,394 41 773 133 — —
Chelan 66,900 8,600 18,200 486 395 58 253 44 — —
Clallam 65,000 7,100 13,900 188 450 43 874 11 — —
Clark 359,100 45,500 101,000 1,184 1,820 97 440 154 — —
Cowlitz 93,800 11,600 24,500 455 924 53 904 113 — —
Grant 76,400 10,900 23,900 821 880 148 491 26 — —
Grays Harbor 68,100 8,300 16,700 201 883 52 558 63 — —
Island 73,800 8,500 18,400 138 351 23 272 31 — —
King 1,753,600 174,400 387,700 3,493 2,040 234 328 831 — —
Kitsap 234,500 29,400 61,700 852 1,324 80 397 179 — —
Lewis 69,000 8,800 17,800 290 464 36 237 73 — —
Pierce 718,400 89,300 194,000 1,976 3,802 72 327 329 — —
Skagit 105,100 12,900 27,000 353 779 29 122 51 — —
Snohomish 622,800 76,900 167,300 1,508 3,064 45 2,257 498 — —
Spokane 422,900 50,300 106,600 187 3,983 * 1,152 275 — —
Thurston 212,600 25,400 52,700 1,000 844 86 658 108 — —
Walla Walla 55,300 6,300 13,200 191 255 30 38 53 — —
Whatcom 170,600 18,900 40,000 812 677 * 509 128 — —
Yakima 223,400 30,900 69,800 1,054 1,978 51 1,097 223 — —
20 Small Counties 455,400 55,400 113,100 1,381 2,134 246 1,284 354 — —
West Virginia – 55 Counties

Berkeley 78,700 9,300 20,200 71 54 * 52 — — —
Cabell 95,800 8,500 19,200 479 104 9 * — — —
Harrison 68,100 7,400 15,600 120 45 19 23 — — —
Kanawha 197,800 19,100 42,000 457 311 29 38 — — —
Marion 56,300 5,400 11,500 * 0 * * — — —
Mercer 62,000 5,800 13,000 19 53 0 21 — — —
Monongalia 82,300 6,700 14,700 * 73 * 68 — — —
Ohio 46,700 4,800 9,800 17 19 * 55 — — —
Raleigh 78,500 7,900 16,600 135 20 67 88 — — —
Wood 87,700 9,500 20,000 69 214 * 261 — — —
45 Small Counties 947,900 102,400 212,900 1,136 424 513 479 — — —
Wyoming – 23 Counties
Albany 31,800 2,500 5,700 27 — 7 — 15 — —
Campbell 34,700 5,200 10,300 40 — 8 — 15 — —
Carbon 15,300 1,800 3,500 14 — 7 — 13 — —
Fremont 35,800 4,700 9,500 39 — 0 — 25 — —
Laramie 82,400 9,700 20,900 199 — 37 — 35 — —
Natrona 66,900 8,100 16,900 82 — 16 — 45 — —


Park 25,800 3,100 6,000 74 — * — 29 — —

Sheridan 26,700 3,200 6,200 30 — 40 — 26 — —
Sweetwater 36,800 5,000 10,100 162 — 31 — 17 — —
Uinta 19,500 3,200 6,300 33 — * — 9 — —
13 Small Counties 118,400 14,900 28,900 202 — 46 — 67 — —
Number of Reported Cases 902 — 202 — 296 — —

Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2002, by County
2002 populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

Alabama – 67 Counties
Autauga 45,600 6,100 12,600 107 129 16 26 0 — —
Baldwin 148,100 17,000 35,200 584 60 304 929 * — —
Barbour 29,000 3,400 7,200 152 * 43 30 0 — —
Bibb 21,100 2,300 5,200 68 0 30 0 10 — —
Blount 53,100 6,100 13,200 159 40 101 324 6 — —
Bullock 11,300 1,300 2,800 11 0 8 0 * — —
Butler 20,800 2,600 5,300 51 0 9 0 0 — —
Calhoun 111,400 11,800 26,000 422 272 157 414 126 — —
Chambers 36,200 3,900 8,700 177 * 104 11 * — —
Coffee 44,000 5,100 10,700 240 0 105 0 * — —
Colbert 54,800 6,000 12,700 158 0 21 0 11 — —
Cullman 78,000 8,600 18,500 294 38 51 440 * — —
Dale 49,300 5,700 13,100 230 0 314 0 7 — —
Dallas 45,300 5,900 12,800 392 * 216 * 13 — —
De Kalb 65,700 7,100 16,000 110 0 40 0 9 — —
Elmore 69,100 8,100 17,300 363 0 84 0 0 — —
Etowah 103,000 11,100 24,200 302 0 71 0 0 — —
Houston 90,100 10,600 22,900 734 38 237 23 0 — —
Jackson 53,900 6,000 12,700 219 0 143 0 * — —
Jefferson 659,400 74,100 161,500 1,855 641 343 319 * — —
Lauderdale 87,100 9,200 19,500 322 64 139 213 13 — —
Lee 117,600 12,100 26,500 485 134 327 444 58 — —
Limestone 67,500 7,600 16,500 199 69 14 * 46 — —
Madison 285,400 33,100 71,600 1,105 766 37 442 24 — —
Marshall 83,300 9,200 20,700 372 65 293 704 0 — —
Mobile 399,700 49,200 108,200 2,225 1,431 346 1,228 301 — —
Montgomery 223,000 25,800 57,400 1,686 164 36 * 75 — —
Morgan 111,800 12,900 27,800 627 87 151 232 58 — —
Russell 49,300 5,900 12,900 485 0 570 0 60 — —
St. Clair 67,400 7,900 16,700 222 0 521 0 0 — —
Shelby 153,900 17,600 40,000 328 131 131 386 74 — —
Talladega 80,300 9,300 19,800 257 76 66 26 7 — —
Tuscaloosa 165,500 17,000 38,200 738 228 106 223 150 — —
Walker 70,600 7,500 16,300 368 0 490 0 13 — —
33 Small Counties 729,600 85,200 180,800 2,992 31 1,961 43 151 — —
Alaska – 27 Districts
27 Small Districts 640,800 91,200 190,000 1,969 3,771 — — — — —
Population Represented 640,800 91,200 190,000 91,200 91,200 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 21.59 41.35 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Districts 27 27 — — — — —
Arizona – 15 Counties
Apache 67,500 12,600 25,300 153 209 7 74 — — —
Cochise 120,000 15,000 31,800 726 1,164 89 568 — — —
Coconino 120,000 16,300 34,200 898 1,083 172 672 — — —
Maricopa 3,293,600 386,100 914,000 12,152 8,970 1,878 7,936 — — —
Mohave 165,800 18,000 38,700 803 1,251 34 630 — — —
Navajo 102,100 17,500 35,400 710 517 127 438 — — —
Pima 877,500 99,500 220,200 5,993 5,954 119 3,504 — — —
Pinal 194,900 22,900 50,000 1,435 1,001 127 443 — — —


Yavapai 179,100 18,600 37,900 971 928 144 475 — — —

Yuma 166,700 21,800 49,500 2,248 671 234 1,214 — — —
5 Small Counties 151,800 20,400 42,600 1,404 931 387 619 — — —
Arkansas – 75 Counties
Benton 165,300 19,500 44,100 271 — 244 — 151 — —
Craighead 83,700 8,900 20,300 288 — 395 — 51 — —
Crittenden 51,200 7,100 15,800 406 — 112 — 45 — —
Faulkner 90,000 10,300 22,600 309 — 365 — 90 — —
Garland 90,000 9,000 19,200 455 — 448 — 119 — —
Jefferson 83,300 9,900 21,500 590 — 342 — 184 — —
Mississippi 50,200 6,600 14,900 390 — 114 — 88 — —
Pulaski 363,700 40,100 92,500 1,424 — 618 — 270 — —
Saline 86,200 10,300 21,300 252 — 122 — 77 — —
Sebastian 116,900 13,400 30,700 403 — 417 — 210 — —
Washington 165,600 17,700 41,900 655 — 486 — 111 — —
White 69,100 7,900 16,700 96 — 93 — 65 — —
63 Small Counties 1,292,200 152,200 320,500 3,618 — 2,855 — 1,156 — —
California – 58 Counties
Alameda 1,463,900 156,200 358,900 3,244 2,950 10 68 1,228 — —
Butte 208,700 24,000 48,100 976 634 44 39 428 — —
Contra Costa 988,600 119,300 257,800 0 0 0 0 6 — —
El Dorado 165,800 21,200 40,600 1,305 202 20 43 350 — —
Fresno 832,100 117,900 258,200 4,927 6,577 60 188 0 — —
Humboldt 127,400 14,000 28,400 152 35 8 12 16 — —
Imperial 145,700 21,200 44,300 908 27 126 * 102 — —
Kern 693,100 98,000 214,300 2,917 2,018 * 1,078 2,617 — —
Kings 134,500 16,800 38,300 501 0 * — 218 — —
Lake 62,300 7,600 14,500 257 366 11 45 81 — —
Los Angeles 9,763,800 1,183,100 2,685,400 15,800 11,755 297 138 10,275 — —
Madera 128,800 17,000 37,100 721 548 8 346 144 — —
Marin 247,200 23,000 49,900 716 331 14 — 59 — —
Mendocino 87,600 10,900 21,400 359 0 * — 184 — —
Merced 224,900 34,800 75,000 638 1,143 115 514 256 — —
Monterey 411,600 51,000 116,100 1,156 1,441 182 31 24 — —
Napa 130,000 14,400 30,500 465 345 20 63 49 — —
Nevada 95,100 11,100 20,400 266 379 13 65 49 — —
Orange 2,927,900 336,200 778,500 7,904 3,273 84 217 2,316 — —
Placer 279,000 33,600 68,800 627 593 * 27 327 — —
Riverside 1,694,600 229,700 496,300 3,580 0 0 — 2,844 — —
Sacramento 1,301,700 162,100 355,000 4,985 484 * * 1,579 — —
San Bernardino 1,808,900 263,300 566,900 5,145 3,679 789 86 5,844 — —
San Diego 2,896,100 326,900 741,300 8,026 3,803 1,002 159 2,330 — —
San Francisco 762,000 46,700 109,700 787 1,486 7 13 969 — —
San Joaquin 612,600 85,600 184,400 1,842 0 0 — 992 — —
San Luis Obispo 252,100 26,300 51,900 579 0 * — 261 — —
San Mateo 701,300 69,700 160,400 2,150 868 23 39 367 — —
Santa Barbara 401,500 44,900 98,500 1,613 1,292 97 487 156 — —
Santa Clara 1,674,600 174,300 411,000 3,837 4,112 0 170 799 — —
Santa Cruz 253,400 27,800 59,000 589 0 0 — 141 — —
Shasta 171,900 21,800 42,300 1,069 497 7 33 151 — —
Solano 409,500 53,300 114,300 1,373 48 * — 128 — —
Sonoma 465,900 53,600 111,100 1,046 855 0 — 284 — —
Stanislaus 480,200 68,000 144,900 1,302 1,480 51 297 377 — —


Sutter 82,200 10,900 22,900 340 412 * 45 127 — —

Tehama 57,700 7,500 15,100 276 39 * — 119 — —
Tulare 381,300 56,800 125,200 1,808 0 * 0 573 — —
Tuolumne 56,000 5,800 10,800 144 139 * 70 196 — —
Ventura 780,900 99,200 215,600 1,809 1,512 373 1,100 337 — —
Yolo 179,300 20,500 43,900 545 14 15 0 260 — —
Yuba 62,400 8,700 19,000 136 320 11 9 136 — —
16 Small Counties 384,200 46,900 91,500 1,582 1,425 52 282 467 — —
Colorado – 63 Counties
Adams 389,500 47,100 110,700 1,280 — — — 380 — —
Arapahoe 510,200 62,700 135,600 1,845 — — — 311 — —
Boulder 300,700 31,600 69,200 1,197 — — — 159 — —
Denver 557,700 49,300 128,400 2,412 — — — 578 — —
Douglas 211,700 26,900 64,700 582 — — — 15 — —
El Paso 541,800 66,900 149,700 2,094 — — — 417 — —
Jefferson 532,300 63,800 132,600 2,036 — — — 341 — —
Larimer 263,800 29,100 61,800 1,061 — — — 125 — —
Mesa 122,200 14,200 29,700 471 — — — 114 — —
Pueblo 147,400 17,300 37,500 692 — — — 310 — —
Weld 204,400 25,000 56,300 1,349 — — — 162 — —
52 Small Counties 716,500 81,700 170,900 2,526 — — — 615 — —
Population Represented 4,498,100 515,800 1,147,100 515,800 — — — 1,147,100 — —
Connecticut – 13 Venue Districts

Bridgeport — — — 883 462 315 221 — — —
Danbury — — — 178 203 60 80 — — —
Hartford — — — 1,493 870 348 310 — — —
Middletown — — — 475 290 180 119 — — —
Montville — — — 616 437 162 241 — — —
New Haven — — — 2,091 616 697 350 — — —
Norwalk — — — 315 159 81 65 — — —
Plainville — — — 969 387 420 183 — — —
Stamford — — — 220 193 74 55 — — —
Talcottville — — — 490 250 245 157 — — —
Torrington — — — 319 242 183 152 — — —
Waterbury — — — 1,168 572 513 351 — — —
Willimantic — — — 445 268 172 173 — — —
Rates for Reporting Venue Districts 32.64 16.72 11.66 8.30 — — —
Number of Reporting Venue Districts 13 13 13 13 — — —
Delaware – 3 Counties
Kent 131,600 16,200 34,900 1,435 — — — 308 — —
New Castle 510,200 56,500 124,500 5,083 — — — 829 — —
Sussex 164,200 16,800 36,000 1,718 — — — 80 — —
Population Represented 806,100 89,400 195,400 89,400 — — — 195,400 — —


District of Columbia – 1 District

District of Columbia 564,600 45,800 109,400 1,376 716 20 * — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,376 716 20 2 — — —
Rates for Reporting District 30.05 15.64 0.44 0.04 — — —
Florida – 67 Counties
Alachua 220,800 20,900 44,400 1,243 607 * 25 — — —
Bay 152,200 17,200 36,500 941 616 17 522 — — —
Brevard 495,800 53,700 108,300 2,263 1,332 25 49 — — —
Broward 1,704,100 186,600 414,400 8,012 3,486 39 31 — — —
Charlotte 149,900 11,900 23,800 544 490 6 16 — — —
Citrus 123,700 11,200 21,400 475 256 8 18 — — —
Clay 151,600 20,500 41,100 919 551 13 11 — — —
Collier 275,700 25,000 56,600 1,216 530 23 46 — — —
Columbia 58,500 7,000 14,600 291 272 0 11 — — —
Duval 802,100 95,400 213,900 3,823 3,174 10 16 — — —
Escambia 296,800 32,300 70,200 2,576 857 14 64 — — —
Hernando 138,300 13,200 26,700 462 129 * * — — —
Highlands 90,100 8,200 17,400 581 433 * 18 — — —
Hillsborough 1,051,300 120,900 270,300 4,580 4,653 36 72 — — —
Indian River 118,000 11,000 22,800 607 252 18 14 — — —
Lake 235,000 22,400 48,200 1,252 559 10 14 — — —
Lee 475,500 44,100 96,700 2,476 1,048 34 34 — — —
Leon 239,800 23,300 51,700 1,093 653 22 38 — — —
Manatee 280,200 27,200 60,000 1,556 825 7 6 — — —
Marion 272,500 28,500 58,600 1,669 864 16 14 — — —
Martin 131,800 12,300 25,000 637 386 19 9 — — —
Miami-Dade 2,314,200 265,000 577,900 9,297 2,956 52 36 — — —
Monroe 79,000 6,400 13,700 245 265 6 18 — — —
Nassau 60,600 7,300 14,800 268 166 * 7 — — —
Okaloosa 175,200 20,100 43,600 1,299 418 90 18 — — —
Orange 944,800 107,800 244,400 6,685 1,678 20 16 — — —
Osceola 194,100 24,200 52,200 1,209 346 * 0 — — —
Palm Beach 1,187,500 119,200 257,900 4,342 3,697 18 63 — — —
Pasco 373,000 36,200 77,600 2,376 446 25 * — — —
Pinellas 924,800 86,100 183,500 6,226 2,417 87 35 — — —
Polk 500,200 56,900 124,000 3,606 2,674 40 56 — — —
Putnam 71,200 8,500 17,600 544 343 * * — — —
St. Johns 136,400 15,400 30,800 680 432 11 28 — — —
St. Lucie 205,300 22,400 46,600 1,449 262 7 * — — —
Santa Rosa 127,300 16,200 32,700 796 290 49 47 — — —
Sarasota 340,100 27,700 56,900 1,399 592 12 13 — — —
Seminole 381,000 45,700 95,800 1,914 1,056 27 37 — — —
Volusia 459,500 46,000 94,100 3,224 1,919 27 70 — — —
29 Small Counties 743,000 81,400 169,900 3,681 2,001 30 84 — — —
Georgia – 159 Counties

Baldwin 44,900 4,000 8,900 224 — 15 — 0 — —
Bartow 82,600 9,000 21,900 350 181 161 115 167 77 —
Bibb 154,500 16,100 39,500 1,823 — 346 — 1,322 — —
Bulloch 57,100 5,100 11,800 — — — — — — —
Carroll 94,900 9,500 23,200 504 — 212 — 237 — —
Catoosa 56,600 5,900 13,700 360 — 173 — 110 — —
Chatham 235,200 23,300 56,200 1,965 347 358 61 407 16 —
Cherokee 159,600 17,200 42,700 495 32 197 20 250 8 —


Clarke 102,200 6,800 17,700 520 140 129 90 123 26 —

Clayton 253,400 29,400 72,800 2,508 1,298 648 212 1,046 13 —
Cobb 638,400 64,700 159,200 3,479 — 650 — 1,442 — —
Columbia 94,700 11,700 25,300 — — — — — — —
Coweta 97,900 10,700 26,400 320 138 31 30 211 17 —
De Kalb 673,000 62,500 159,900 4,236 — 1,522 — 1,606 — —
Dougherty 95,700 10,300 24,900 913 102 20 170 92 9 —
Douglas 98,400 11,000 25,800 806 — 171 — 418 — —
Fayette 96,400 12,500 24,400 377 62 86 40 82 25 —
Floyd 92,600 9,200 21,700 680 — 452 — 657 — —
Forsyth 116,800 11,300 31,300 365 — 124 — 97 — —
Fulton 817,500 76,800 194,400 3,616 1,737 445 361 2,144 547 —
Glynn 69,400 7,100 16,300 545 — 159 — 124 — —
Gwinnett 648,800 69,200 173,700 1,862 643 443 437 485 54 —
Hall 151,800 15,100 39,500 767 81 144 * 233 * —
Henry 140,100 16,000 38,100 628 153 202 92 306 108 —
Houston 116,500 13,500 30,500 1,799 — 1,036 — 635 — —
Laurens 45,700 4,900 11,400 — — — — — — —
Liberty 60,800 7,100 19,900 314 — 231 — 20 — —
Lowndes 93,600 9,700 23,200 — — — — — — —
Muscogee 185,200 19,300 47,500 1,063 1,067 400 309 0 0 —
Newton 71,800 7,700 19,000 497 68 241 46 164 11 —
Paulding 94,500 10,700 27,600 443 — 185 — 314 — —
Richmond 198,200 21,400 51,000 2,576 — 870 — 447 — —
Rockdale 73,100 8,700 18,700 852 — 80 — 176 — —
Spalding 59,700 6,500 15,500 568 40 77 6 77 6 —
Thomas 43,100 4,800 10,800 369 — 63 — 125 — —
Troup 59,900 6,700 15,700 460 277 53 101 143 52 —
Walker 62,100 6,200 14,300 211 61 118 27 170 0 —
Walton 67,100 7,300 17,800 613 137 180 43 82 13 —
Whitfield 86,800 8,900 23,400 461 105 177 36 302 16 —
120 Small Counties 2,148,800 229,000 531,200 8,993 193 2,828 112 3,513 6 —
Population Represented 8,539,700 886,700 2,146,600 807,300 374,000 807,300 374,000 1,965,700 922,200 —
Hawaii – 5 Counties
Hawaii 154,900 20,000 41,100 517 559 150 615 453 — —
Honolulu 886,200 90,200 205,600 1,617 438 384 2,167 — — —
Kalawao 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — —
Kauai 60,000 7,500 15,400 260 69 39 315 — — —
Maui 133,300 15,200 33,100 433 234 183 380 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 2,827 1,300 756 3,477 453 — —
Population Represented 1,234,500 132,800 295,100 132,800 132,800 132,800 132,800 41,100 — —
Idaho – 44 Counties
Ada 319,800 38,000 85,900 2,350 307 — — 120 69 —
Bannock 75,800 9,100 21,100 0 2,062 — — 0 144 —
Bonneville 85,300 12,300 26,400 0 593 — — 0 65 —
Canyon 145,500 18,900 44,500 0 1,486 — — 0 165 —
Kootenai 114,300 14,300 30,000 0 1,002 — — 0 120 —
Twin Falls 65,500 8,200 17,700 0 1,614 — — 0 63 —
38 Small Counties 536,900 70,600 147,100 3,556 1,809 — — 317 140 —
Number of Reported Cases 5,906 8,873 — — 437 766 —
Population Represented 1,343,200 171,300 372,700 171,300 171,300 — — 372,700 372,700 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 34.48 51.80 — — 1.17 2.06 —
Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 — — 44 44 —


Illinois – 102 Counties

Adams 67,800 6,900 15,400 101 — 25 — 64 — —
Champaign 182,300 14,600 35,600 107 — 7 — 80 — —
Coles 51,900 3,900 9,400 165 — 13 — 28 — —
Cook 5,364,200 531,200 1,309,000 9,252 6,209 * — 2,053 — —
De Kalb 92,000 8,300 19,500 146 — 16 — 60 — —
Du Page 920,900 95,200 227,300 982 — 51 — 70 — —
Henry 50,500 5,300 11,400 62 — 7 — 19 — —
Jackson 58,200 4,500 10,300 65 — 0 — 14 — —
Kane 442,400 49,400 124,800 975 — 25 — 65 — —
Kankakee 105,300 11,400 26,300 333 — 13 — 39 — —
Knox 54,900 4,800 11,200 65 — 0 — 21 — —
Lake 674,900 75,400 184,200 948 — * — 305 — —
La Salle 111,800 11,500 25,600 250 — 24 — 33 — —
McHenry 279,000 32,600 76,700 195 — 10 — 31 — —
McLean 155,300 13,900 33,900 161 — 21 — 86 — —
Macon 112,600 11,100 25,600 298 — 6 — 50 — —
Madison 261,500 26,300 59,600 590 — 21 — 305 — —
Peoria 182,600 17,700 43,200 622 — * — 155 — —
Rock Island 148,500 13,900 32,800 153 — * — 110 — —
St. Clair 257,400 28,900 65,400 476 — 125 — 86 — —
Sangamon 191,500 19,000 44,100 172 — 45 — 167 — —
Tazewell 128,400 12,500 28,400 150 — 6 — 72 — —
Vermilion 83,300 8,100 19,300 244 — 69 — 75 — —
Whiteside 60,300 6,000 13,800 108 — * — 27 — —
Will 557,500 63,300 153,500 527 — 99 — 97 — —
Williamson 62,200 5,700 13,000 70 — 21 — 40 — —
Winnebago 282,000 29,700 69,600 518 — 16 — 264 — —
75 Small Counties 1,646,000 165,400 364,300 3,875 — 222 — 917 — —
Number of Reported Cases 21,610 6,209 856 — 5,333 — —
Population Represented 12,585,200 1,276,300 3,053,300 1,276,300 531,200 1,275,200 — 3,053,300 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 16.93 11.69 0.67 — 1.75 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 102 1 100 — 102 — —
Indiana – 92 Counties
Allen 337,600 42,100 94,900 2,538 854 1,051 328 295 — —
Bartholomew 71,900 8,600 19,200 159 63 27 71 16 — —
Clark 98,000 10,600 24,000 193 15 54 10 79 — —
Delaware 118,900 12,100 26,000 271 53 202 77 114 — —
Elkhart 185,900 24,000 54,400 860 569 152 396 109 — —
Floyd 71,500 8,800 18,400 63 359 18 201 51 — —
Grant 72,400 8,100 17,100 401 163 36 35 28 — —
Hamilton 208,600 27,500 63,700 774 121 105 25 402 — —
Hancock 58,300 7,200 15,100 95 115 6 37 29 — —
Hendricks 115,000 14,700 31,500 428 258 114 132 11 — —
Henry 48,100 5,500 11,600 85 24 21 25 75 — —
Howard 84,700 9,800 22,000 444 80 100 18 71 — —
Johnson 121,600 15,000 32,700 602 12 35 * 70 — —
Knox 39,000 4,200 8,700 44 32 30 12 7 — —
Kosciusko 75,000 9,500 20,700 69 34 0 15 11 — —
Lake 486,100 59,200 129,700 2,027 0 196 156 634 — —
La Porte 110,200 12,500 27,100 643 * 116 21 108 — —
Lawrence 46,100 5,100 11,200 123 15 51 10 9 — —
Madison 132,000 14,500 31,700 743 17 311 23 157 — —
Marion 862,500 98,300 229,100 5,935 2,474 817 1,556 * — —
Marshall 45,800 5,900 12,700 71 15 26 * 78 — —
Monroe 119,900 9,400 21,300 242 74 124 57 205 — —
Morgan 68,000 8,600 18,200 240 24 48 31 15 — —
Porter 150,700 18,200 37,900 384 96 46 60 145 — —
St. Joseph 266,000 31,100 69,600 1,048 312 142 13 344 — —
Shelby 43,800 5,500 11,600 131 60 21 24 26 — —
Tippecanoe 149,900 13,700 31,400 378 65 476 26 165 — —
Vanderburgh 172,100 18,200 40,400 487 79 106 63 309 — —


Vigo 104,600 11,000 24,100 218 18 110 27 113 — —

Warrick 53,600 6,800 14,000 128 62 11 128 18 — —
Wayne 70,400 8,100 17,200 103 104 30 19 109 — —
61 Small Counties 1,570,300 194,500 411,500 4,482 1,764 937 1,126 1,992 — —
Iowa – 99 Counties
Black Hawk 126,500 12,700 27,700 378 — — — 129 — —
Cerro Gordo 45,400 4,900 10,200 68 — — — 114 — —
Clinton 49,900 5,900 12,200 105 — — — 63 — —
Des Moines 41,500 4,600 9,800 129 — — — 88 — —
Dubuque 89,500 10,300 21,900 331 — — — 125 — —
Johnson 113,800 9,400 21,900 222 — — — 89 — —
Linn 195,200 21,300 48,100 440 — — — 341 — —
Muscatine 42,100 5,000 10,800 40 — — — 90 — —
Polk 384,700 41,700 97,300 1,126 — — — 1,159 — —
Pottawattamie 88,200 10,500 22,100 386 — — — 321 — —
Scott 159,100 18,900 40,700 411 — — — 271 — —
Story 80,700 6,400 14,200 59 — — — 72 — —
Warren 41,400 5,100 10,500 76 — — — 47 — —
Woodbury 103,400 12,200 27,800 207 — — — 298 — —
85 Small Counties 1,373,500 162,700 328,000 2,460 — — — 2,354 — —
Kansas – 105 Counties

Butler 60,500 8,300 16,500 382 — — — — — —
Douglas 101,500 9,100 20,100 190 — — — — — —
Johnson 476,100 56,500 125,700 2,485 — — — — — —
Leavenworth 71,400 8,600 18,500 341 — — — — — —
Reno 64,000 7,100 15,200 573 — — — — — —
Riley 62,100 4,700 11,600 215 — — — — — —
Saline 54,000 6,400 13,800 1,147 — — — — — —
Sedgwick 460,400 56,200 127,900 1,895 — — — — — —
Shawnee 170,500 19,200 42,500 854 — — — — — —
Wyandotte 157,700 19,400 44,300 1,477 — — — — — —
95 Small Counties 1,034,700 127,400 263,700 6,907 — — — — — —
Population Represented 2,712,900 322,700 699,800 322,700 — — — — — —
Louisiana – 64 Parishes
Acadia 59,100 6,900 16,000 — — — — — — 362
Ascension 81,800 9,400 22,400 — — — — — — 388
Bossier 100,800 11,100 26,000 — — — — — — 1,253
Caddo 250,500 26,600 61,400 — — — — — — 4,167
Calcasieu 183,200 19,100 45,600 — — — — — — 1,213
East Baton Rouge 410,300 41,000 98,300 — — — — — — 1,692
Iberia 73,700 8,600 20,200 — — — — — — 1,324
Jefferson 451,900 44,600 105,000 — — — — — — 4,526
Lafayette 192,800 20,400 48,100 — — — — — — 1,533
Lafourche 90,800 9,900 22,200 — — — — — — 601
Livingston 99,000 11,300 25,900 — — — — — — 287
Orleans 472,500 49,100 116,600 — — — — — — 445
Ouachita 147,100 16,500 37,900 — — — — — — 905


Rapides 126,700 13,300 31,400 — — — — — — 2,572

St. Bernard 66,400 6,800 15,200 — — — — — — 540
St. Landry 88,400 10,000 23,500 — — — — — — 586
St. Mary 52,500 6,100 14,100 — — — — — — 950
St. Tammany 201,900 23,100 51,500 — — — — — — 1,729
Tangipahoa 102,400 11,000 25,900 — — — — — — 339
Terrebonne 105,500 12,000 27,700 — — — — — — 640
Vermilion 54,100 6,000 13,700 — — — — — — 346
Vernon 51,200 5,300 14,800 — — — — — — 376
42 Small Parishes 1,014,000 109,500 250,700 — — — — — — 10,441
Population Represented 4,477,000 477,600 1,114,300 — — — — — — 477,600
Rates for Reporting Parishes — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting Parishes — — — — — — 64
Maine – 16 Counties
Androscoggin 105,200 11,800 24,300 599 — — — 68 — —
Aroostook 73,200 8,100 15,500 250 — — — 57 — —
Cumberland 269,900 29,300 60,500 983 — — — 138 — —
Kennebec 118,700 13,700 26,800 516 — — — 73 — —
Oxford 55,800 6,600 12,600 107 — — — 17 — —
Penobscot 146,900 16,000 31,700 451 — — — 140 — —
Somerset 51,000 6,100 11,900 212 — — — 58 — —
York 195,700 22,900 46,000 764 — — — 121 — —
8 Small Counties 281,400 32,000 61,700 1,019 — — — 210 — —
Number of Reported Cases 4,901 — — — 882 — —
Maryland – 24 Counties
Allegany 74,000 7,300 14,700 216 585 13 205 — — —
Anne Arundel 502,100 57,700 125,200 1,511 3,377 0 223 — — —
Baltimore 768,600 85,400 178,900 3,315 3,159 * 206 — — —
Calvert 80,900 11,400 22,600 324 419 0 122 — — —
Carroll 159,300 20,700 42,000 378 500 31 196 — — —
Cecil 90,400 11,600 24,000 404 610 0 32 — — —
Charles 128,200 17,200 35,800 489 863 0 101 — — —
Frederick 209,100 26,200 56,200 914 867 29 327 — — —
Harford 227,400 29,200 61,300 533 1,138 9 252 — — —
Howard 259,900 32,800 71,400 577 901 0 90 — — —
Montgomery 906,000 103,200 228,600 1,186 1,962 0 45 — — —
Prince George’s 827,700 98,100 220,000 1,676 2,496 * 178 — — —
St. Mary’s 90,000 11,400 24,500 197 527 0 90 — — —
Washington 134,800 14,600 31,000 400 747 0 181 — — —
Wicomico 86,200 9,700 20,800 188 969 0 189 — — —
Baltimore City 636,100 73,100 158,100 6,839 4,232 * 200 — — —
8 Small Counties 260,900 28,400 57,700 738 2,887 13 472 — — —
Massachusetts – 14 Counties
Barnstable 227,600 19,700 41,600 2,924 — 529 — 95 — —
Berkshire 133,300 12,400 26,400 1,083 — 257 — 95 — —
Bristol 543,900 53,300 122,500 4,459 — 1,194 — 280 — —
Dukes 15,400 1,500 3,100 — — — — — — —
Essex 736,500 73,700 173,200 5,315 — 1,155 — 367 — —
Franklin 71,900 7,200 14,800 1,311 — 307 — 99 — —
Hampden 459,600 48,700 109,000 4,500 — 961 — 367 — —


Hampshire 152,600 12,200 26,200 — — — — — — —

Middlesex 1,468,700 126,800 308,400 — — — — — — —
Nantucket 9,900 700 1,800 — — — — — — —
Norfolk 653,700 60,100 143,000 — — — — — — —
Plymouth 484,600 51,900 118,200 2,800 — 522 — 130 — —
Suffolk 685,200 53,000 130,800 4,900 — 1,727 — 410 — —
Worcester 769,600 78,800 181,100 4,929 — 162 — 408 — —
Population Represented 6,412,600 600,100 1,400,100 398,800 — 398,800 — 917,500 — —
Michigan – 83 Counties
Allegan 109,300 12,800 28,300 897 — — — 70 — —
Barry 58,200 6,500 14,200 476 — — — 52 — —
Bay 109,700 10,900 24,500 766 — — — 33 — —
Berrien 162,500 17,300 38,900 1,517 — — — 117 — —
Calhoun 138,700 14,700 33,300 1,445 — — — 81 — —
Cass 51,500 5,600 11,800 414 — — — 127 — —
Clinton 66,800 7,500 16,600 269 — — — 29 — —
Eaton 105,500 11,200 24,700 655 — — — 18 — —
Genesee 440,900 48,000 112,100 1,290 — — — 535 — —
Grand Traverse 81,100 8,400 18,200 754 — — — 55 — —
Ingham 280,100 25,500 61,100 1,531 — — — 884 — —
Ionia 63,200 6,700 15,200 554 — — — 43 — —
Isabella 64,000 5,100 11,700 410 — — — 71 — —
Jackson 161,200 17,000 38,100 2,070 — — — 216 — —
Kalamazoo 240,400 23,000 54,100 3,019 — — — 563 — —
Kent 586,600 64,300 154,400 4,262 — — — 520 — —
Lapeer 90,800 10,400 22,400 485 — — — 31 — —
Lenawee 100,500 10,800 23,500 880 — — — 46 — —
Livingston 169,000 19,500 42,900 876 — — — 34 — —
Macomb 808,000 77,300 181,200 3,115 — — — 294 — —
Marquette 64,700 5,500 12,000 473 — — — 36 — —
Midland 83,800 9,300 20,300 522 — — — 62 — —
Monroe 149,300 17,100 36,600 1,765 — — — 56 — —
Montcalm 62,600 6,900 15,200 365 — — — 52 — —
Muskegon 172,200 19,400 43,400 1,298 — — — 159 — —
Oakland 1,203,300 120,600 281,400 4,065 — — — 289 — —
Ottawa 246,400 27,800 64,300 2,288 — — — 106 — —
Saginaw 209,900 22,700 51,300 596 — — — 249 — —
St. Clair 167,400 18,200 40,500 742 — — — 141 — —
St. Joseph 62,400 6,800 15,700 567 — — — 82 — —
Shiawassee 72,200 7,800 17,500 485 — — — 38 — —
Tuscola 58,300 6,600 13,800 229 — — — 28 — —
Van Buren 77,500 8,900 19,700 813 — — — 51 — —
Washtenaw 332,400 28,000 68,800 1,274 — — — 157 — —
Wayne 2,040,200 230,400 537,400 9,736 — — — 2,106 — —
48 Small Counties 1,151,900 116,000 247,700 9,626 — — — 882 — —
Population Represented 10,042,500 1,054,400 2,412,700 1,054,400 — — — 2,412,700 — —
Minnesota – 87 Counties
Anoka 310,300 40,100 86,300 1,588 — 664 — — — —
Blue Earth 56,700 5,400 11,400 353 — 149 — — — —
Clay 51,800 6,000 12,100 385 — 137 — — — —
Dakota 369,000 48,000 103,800 3,335 — 1,418 — — — —
Hennepin 1,120,400 117,900 265,400 7,892 — 7,246 — — — —
Olmsted 129,100 15,500 33,500 699 — 299 — — — —
Otter Tail 57,500 7,000 13,200 276 — 95 — — — —
Ramsey 509,500 58,100 128,100 3,415 — 682 — — — —


Rice 58,700 6,800 13,900 470 — 193 — — — —

St. Louis 199,900 21,000 41,900 1,583 — 574 — — — —
Scott 103,900 13,200 31,000 0 — 0 — — — —
Stearns 138,200 16,200 33,500 1,156 — 366 — — — —
Washington 210,500 27,600 58,900 776 — 229 — — — —
Wright 98,500 13,400 28,800 910 — 301 — — — —
73 Small Counties 1,611,200 199,900 400,000 13,405 — 5,028 — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 36,243 — 17,381 — — — —
Population Represented 5,025,100 596,100 1,261,800 596,100 — 596,100 — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 60.80 — 29.16 — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 87 — 87 — — — —
Missouri – 115 Counties

Boone 138,600 12,300 29,400 485 903 479 827 137 408 —
Buchanan 85,300 8,300 19,200 162 615 119 597 102 96 —
Cape Girardeau 69,500 6,500 14,900 117 428 10 195 19 16 —
Cass 87,200 9,900 22,400 63 361 43 459 26 22 —
Clay 191,300 18,900 45,900 147 924 61 202 78 94 —
Cole 71,900 6,800 15,800 102 494 54 266 159 229 —
Franklin 96,100 10,500 23,700 66 658 21 282 254 * —
Greene 243,200 20,800 50,100 171 2,384 * 829 155 437 —
Jackson 659,200 66,600 159,400 1,171 1,963 404 426 707 112 —
Jasper 106,900 10,500 25,900 135 622 81 1,530 235 270 —
Jefferson 204,000 22,500 51,000 171 1,265 58 537 73 17 —
Platte 77,800 7,800 18,200 33 211 6 60 14 * —
St. Charles 303,500 34,500 79,400 347 1,510 89 658 51 50 —
St. Francois 56,800 5,500 12,400 149 344 6 94 10 16 —
St. Louis 1,014,900 103,300 232,600 1,590 5,616 229 2,690 789 537 —
St. Louis City 347,300 35,000 83,700 1,122 2,653 36 854 680 245 —
99 Small Counties 1,926,200 195,700 440,400 2,543 12,320 899 8,958 1,685 3,844 —
Montana – 56 Counties
Cascade 79,800 9,400 19,800 273 1,890 18 1,006 — — —
Flathead 77,500 9,500 18,900 * 1,207 0 65 — — —
Gallatin 71,100 6,900 14,900 98 355 7 29 — — —
Missoula 97,800 10,300 21,300 223 894 34 400 — — —
Yellowstone 132,000 15,200 32,300 311 621 0 69 — — —
51 Small Counties 452,500 57,300 111,700 418 3,439 18 1,118 — — —
Nebraska – 93 Counties
Buffalo 42,800 4,800 10,300 213 — 52 — 59 — —
Dodge 36,000 4,000 8,600 78 — 44 — 46 — —
Douglas 471,400 55,000 124,600 964 — 335 — 521 — —
Hall 53,800 6,300 14,500 203 — 72 — 73 — —
Lancaster 256,400 25,700 59,700 821 — 194 — * — —
Sarpy 129,200 17,300 38,400 130 — 44 — 0 — —
Scotts Bluff 36,700 4,300 9,300 200 — 89 — 41 — —
86 Small Counties 700,100 88,000 177,300 2,282 — 1,307 — 514 — —


Nevada – 17 Counties
Churchill 24,300 3,100 7,300 230 224 42 186 — — —
Clark 1,515,800 168,300 398,800 3,277 6,026 304 3,737 — — —
Douglas 43,200 5,400 9,800 193 498 21 158 — — —
Elko 44,600 6,800 14,100 154 249 0 165 — — —
Esmeralda 900 100 200 * 0 0 0 — — —
Humboldt 16,100 2,400 5,000 92 31 0 67 — — —
Mineral 4,800 600 1,100 26 15 * * — — —
Storey 3,400 300 600 26 27 0 7 — — —
Washoe 361,700 40,700 91,600 1,298 3,460 83 1,375 — — —
White Pine 8,600 1,000 2,000 47 * * 0 — — —
7 Small Counties 144,800 17,300 35,900 851 805 214 292 — — —
New Hampshire – 10 Counties

Cheshire 75,200 7,500 15,500 426 — 135 — 39 — —
Grafton 82,900 7,600 16,100 337 — 64 — 73 — —
Hillsborough 392,300 41,800 94,700 2,225 — 374 — 325 — —
Merrimack 141,800 14,700 31,800 702 — 103 — 62 — —
Rockingham 287,900 31,400 68,800 1,100 — 177 — 147 — —
Strafford 116,100 11,200 25,000 665 — 114 — 89 — —
4 Small Counties 179,400 17,800 36,900 1,244 — 151 — 275 — —
New Jersey – 21 Counties

Atlantic 259,300 30,100 65,300 2,871 — — — — — —
Bergen 894,800 93,000 204,900 2,021 — — — — — —
Burlington 437,800 51,400 108,000 1,671 — — — — — —
Camden 512,100 64,500 135,400 3,519 — — — — — —
Cape May 101,800 11,300 22,300 932 — — — — — —
Cumberland 148,000 17,600 37,300 1,857 — — — — — —
Essex 796,400 91,900 209,000 5,870 — — — — — —
Gloucester 262,600 32,600 66,900 1,413 — — — — — —
Hudson 609,600 60,300 138,700 2,541 — — — — — —
Hunterdon 126,800 14,900 31,600 329 — — — — — —
Mercer 357,600 39,500 85,700 2,229 — — — — — —
Middlesex 770,100 80,900 182,700 2,359 — — — — — —
Monmouth 628,400 75,200 161,400 2,618 — — — — — —
Morris 478,800 52,500 118,900 1,089 — — — — — —
Ocean 537,400 56,800 124,400 1,649 — — — — — —
Passaic 497,100 56,300 131,000 2,508 — — — — — —
Salem 64,800 7,900 16,100 668 — — — — — —
Somerset 307,900 34,000 79,300 549 — — — — — —
Sussex 148,900 19,700 40,100 640 — — — — — —
Union 529,500 58,700 133,100 2,183 — — — — — —
Warren 107,500 12,800 27,400 543 — — — — — —
Population Represented 8,577,200 961,900 2,119,400 961,900 — — — — — —


New Mexico – 33 Districts

Bernalillo 573,000 64,200 143,200 2,975 3,999 77 954 — — —
Chaves 60,800 8,000 16,900 229 711 18 329 — — —
Dona Ana 178,600 23,500 51,500 537 1,267 10 273 — — —
Eddy 51,300 6,700 14,200 191 489 10 168 — — —
Lea 55,800 7,600 16,200 333 553 9 136 — — —
McKinley 73,700 13,200 27,200 253 916 8 222 — — —
Otero 61,700 8,500 17,700 310 475 — 121 — — —
Sandoval 95,700 13,200 27,200 402 531 — 78 — — —
San Juan 120,000 18,200 37,800 536 699 19 315 — — —
Santa Fe 134,200 14,900 31,100 413 940 8 123 — — —
Valencia 68,100 9,400 19,600 285 512 — 20 — — —
22 Small Districts 382,200 48,400 100,300 1,795 2,747 27 874 — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 35.09 58.70 1.12 15.45 — — —
New York – 62 Counties

Albany 296,000 23,100 56,400 367 321 237 422 793 — —
Allegany 50,400 4,300 9,900 33 46 58 68 102 — —
Bronx 1,358,900 133,700 358,300 1,552 222 635 1,968 3,017 — —
Broome 199,800 16,300 38,600 186 174 126 236 271 — —
Cattaraugus 83,400 7,500 17,700 160 136 72 200 211 — —
Cayuga 81,900 7,200 16,700 86 77 41 166 126 — —
Chautauqua 138,400 11,900 27,900 251 80 84 152 165 — —
Chemung 90,800 7,700 18,700 143 28 175 94 249 — —
Chenango 51,400 4,800 11,000 62 61 32 64 143 — —
Clinton 80,800 6,600 15,000 * 55 13 125 124 — —
Columbia 63,200 5,700 12,500 24 58 83 109 307 — —
Dutchess 287,900 25,300 61,000 286 139 173 264 404 — —
Erie 941,600 79,400 193,400 948 494 623 715 1,046 — —
Fulton 55,100 4,800 11,300 25 38 132 81 208 — —
Genesee 59,900 5,500 12,800 62 20 56 33 108 — —
Herkimer 63,700 5,400 12,700 46 78 75 120 57 — —
Jefferson 113,900 9,700 25,900 191 102 99 197 221 — —
Kings 2,484,800 216,500 578,800 1,604 363 950 1,065 2,657 — —
Livingston 64,700 5,200 12,200 67 61 50 93 65 — —
Madison 69,800 6,000 14,200 40 77 134 46 153 — —
Monroe 735,100 66,100 160,300 665 501 515 281 753 — —
Montgomery 49,300 4,100 10,100 61 44 38 33 68 — —
Nassau 1,339,500 112,600 284,300 630 351 259 869 688 — —
New York 1,549,500 81,500 235,000 1,340 51 197 210 2,531 — —
Niagara 218,300 18,900 45,000 209 155 222 355 155 — —
Oneida 234,100 19,900 46,700 291 279 277 224 368 — —
Onondaga 458,700 40,700 100,500 1,106 497 399 342 571 — —
Ontario 101,900 9,000 21,400 60 142 23 81 125 — —
Orange 356,400 35,300 88,000 237 248 232 373 503 — —
Oswego 122,800 11,600 26,900 222 79 70 136 207 — —
Otsego 62,000 5,000 11,000 19 37 24 39 102 — —
Putnam 98,700 8,900 22,100 30 22 47 8 39 — —
Queens 2,242,000 164,000 444,000 1,012 144 426 658 1,689 — —
Rensselaer 152,500 12,800 31,100 187 — 291 — 194 — —
Richmond 455,900 39,400 99,400 277 106 176 173 267 — —
Rockland 291,400 27,100 70,300 147 69 104 125 232 — —
St. Lawrence 111,200 9,200 21,300 41 196 43 203 215 — —
Saratoga 207,100 17,300 43,300 153 102 169 46 425 — —
Schenectady 146,900 12,500 30,700 102 220 114 312 527 — —
Steuben 99,500 9,100 21,300 114 90 89 132 241 — —
Suffolk 1,455,500 128,200 329,300 886 444 704 653 2,126 — —
Sullivan 74,300 6,600 15,300 53 — 83 — 147 — —
Tioga 51,800 5,000 11,300 55 24 27 35 121 — —
Tompkins 98,300 6,200 14,700 70 54 52 115 141 — —


Ulster 180,400 15,100 35,300 110 99 235 30 277 — —

Warren 64,100 5,600 12,600 60 30 80 57 93 — —
Washington 61,500 5,600 12,500 69 64 54 84 134 — —
Wayne 93,800 9,100 21,400 103 105 76 119 109 — —
Westchester 937,900 78,600 206,600 526 — 301 — 609 — —
13 Small Counties 463,900 39,200 90,600 373 347 512 422 774 — —
North Carolina – 100 Counties

Alamance 135,600 11,500 29,400 470 217 25 * — — —
Brunswick 78,900 5,900 14,900 325 174 17 16 — — —
Buncombe 210,500 16,500 41,400 522 339 155 86 — — —
Burke 89,300 7,700 18,800 296 114 30 * — — —
Cabarrus 139,800 12,400 32,800 286 158 32 56 — — —
Caldwell 78,700 6,400 16,700 103 115 19 18 — — —
Carteret 60,300 4,500 10,700 341 95 7 10 — — —
Catawba 146,500 12,300 32,200 435 257 121 27 — — —
Cleveland 97,700 8,900 22,300 371 179 47 38 — — —
Columbus 54,800 4,900 12,400 216 62 11 26 — — —
Craven 91,100 7,400 21,000 651 220 29 48 — — —
Cumberland 304,500 28,800 79,800 1,495 377 131 25 — — —
Davidson 150,800 12,800 32,700 408 393 26 25 — — —
Durham 233,400 17,400 50,300 504 234 26 75 — — —
Edgecombe 55,000 5,400 13,200 232 251 * 6 — — —
Forsyth 314,400 26,000 69,200 680 335 63 42 — — —
Gaston 193,100 16,800 42,900 620 452 153 76 — — —
Guilford 430,300 35,300 93,300 1,587 681 130 29 — — —
Halifax 56,500 5,400 13,000 254 129 0 15 — — —
Harnett 96,900 8,900 23,600 528 225 6 12 — — —
Henderson 92,400 6,800 17,400 170 185 7 21 — — —
Iredell 130,500 11,700 30,100 268 19 35 * — — —
Johnston 132,900 11,400 32,000 322 158 12 7 — — —
Lenoir 58,800 5,200 13,300 183 94 10 37 — — —
Lincoln 66,200 5,900 14,800 136 87 48 20 — — —
Mecklenburg 735,100 62,100 171,300 2,113 1,462 303 68 — — —
Moore 77,900 6,200 15,400 199 148 17 29 — — —
Nash 88,900 8,100 20,300 244 188 12 * — — —
New Hanover 165,800 11,900 31,300 830 433 27 113 — — —
Onslow 149,800 11,900 37,800 574 622 35 137 — — —
Orange 117,100 8,900 21,400 158 179 * 12 — — —
Pitt 137,000 11,100 29,200 468 286 7 18 — — —
Randolph 133,600 11,800 30,200 530 202 60 25 — — —
Robeson 124,700 12,300 32,100 630 407 157 15 — — —
Rockingham 92,600 7,600 19,400 229 98 31 30 — — —
Rowan 133,600 11,600 29,500 478 223 76 58 — — —
Rutherford 63,300 5,400 13,600 191 127 13 * — — —
Stanly 58,700 5,400 13,000 219 60 12 * — — —
Surry 72,100 6,000 15,400 191 68 25 40 — — —
Union 139,400 13,100 35,400 433 55 10 6 — — —
Wake 677,600 57,500 156,800 1,445 506 168 142 — — —
Wayne 113,200 10,200 26,600 486 142 55 51 — — —
Wilkes 66,800 5,100 13,600 286 164 44 45 — — —
Wilson 75,000 6,500 17,100 251 238 * * — — —
56 Small Counties 1,590,400 132,400 333,000 4,845 2,506 673 623 — — —


North Dakota – 53 Counties

Burleigh 71,000 7,800 16,400 126 592 21 402 0 10 —
Cass 125,200 12,400 28,200 304 702 80 556 * * —
Grand Forks 64,900 6,700 14,700 187 440 55 338 0 0 —
Ward 56,800 6,400 14,500 163 291 93 257 * 8 —
49 Small Counties 316,000 39,500 75,600 714 1,625 239 1,924 3 50 —
Number of Reported Cases 1,494 3,650 488 3,477 9 72 —
Population Represented 633,800 72,700 149,400 72,700 72,700 72,700 72,700 149,400 149,400 —
Ohio – 88 Counties
Allen 108,100 13,000 27,500 913 — 191 — 396 — —
Ashtabula 103,000 12,600 26,100 689 — 621 — 29 — —
Athens 62,900 5,100 11,000 474 — 129 — 91 — —
Belmont 69,700 7,300 14,500 663 — 167 — 53 — —
Butler 339,700 39,400 85,900 2,930 — 978 — 625 — —
Clark 143,800 16,500 35,400 2,111 — 343 — 376 — —
Clermont 183,300 22,600 49,500 1,456 — 97 — 141 — —
Columbiana 111,600 12,900 26,100 384 — 92 — 184 — —
Cuyahoga 1,372,800 156,400 336,900 9,957 1,366 627 1,519 6,024 — —
Darke 53,000 6,500 13,400 467 — 102 — 42 — —
Delaware 127,500 15,300 34,400 509 — 85 — 131 — —
Erie 78,900 9,000 18,800 1,896 — 936 — 134 — —
Fairfield 129,300 15,700 33,400 628 — 93 — 339 — —
Franklin 1,082,200 116,600 272,500 8,032 — 1,287 — 4,660 — —
Geauga 92,700 12,300 24,800 375 — 62 — 29 — —
Greene 149,800 16,600 34,300 938 — 131 — 121 — —
Hamilton 830,300 98,600 209,700 21,460 — 2,290 — 352 — —
Hancock 72,700 8,300 18,000 970 — 359 — 57 — —
Huron 60,000 7,600 16,500 576 — 170 — 143 — —
Jefferson 72,200 7,400 15,000 396 — 209 — 223 — —
Lake 230,300 25,800 53,900 1,584 — 520 — 236 — —
Lawrence 62,100 7,000 14,700 350 — 230 — 101 — —
Licking 148,700 17,500 37,600 1,103 — 227 — 551 — —
Lorain 288,100 33,800 73,700 2,466 — 184 — 225 — —
Lucas 454,000 54,200 117,200 6,578 — 706 — 520 — —
Mahoning 252,800 28,100 58,500 1,490 — 548 — 347 — —
Marion 66,300 7,800 15,900 1,918 — 114 — 300 — —
Medina 158,400 19,800 41,600 1,140 — 264 — 54 — —
Miami 99,600 12,100 24,900 1,913 — 482 — 84 — —
Montgomery 553,200 61,500 134,600 3,544 — 799 — 783 — —
Muskingum 85,200 10,100 21,400 794 — 247 — 149 — —
Portage 153,400 16,600 34,900 820 — 37 — 166 — —
Richland 128,400 14,700 31,000 1,889 — 383 — 211 — —
Ross 74,400 8,000 17,200 664 — 259 — 128 — —
Sandusky 61,900 7,500 15,700 637 — 83 — 128 — —
Scioto 78,100 8,800 18,500 442 — 41 — 75 — —
Seneca 58,000 7,100 14,500 1,059 — 275 — 82 — —
Stark 379,500 43,600 92,100 2,814 — 318 — 960 — —
Summit 546,100 61,800 134,000 4,479 — 1,421 — 1,006 — —
Trumbull 223,100 25,200 52,500 1,812 — 432 — 405 — —
Tuscarawas 91,600 10,500 22,300 841 — 111 — 56 — —
Warren 175,000 21,000 46,900 1,646 — 135 — 100 — —
Washington 62,500 6,800 14,100 434 — 96 — 14 — —
Wayne 112,900 14,200 29,800 617 — 129 — 272 — —
Wood 122,000 13,300 27,300 1,425 — 242 — 268 — —
43 Small Counties 1,501,200 183,100 382,300 14,692 — 4,336 — 2,064 — —
Population Represented 11,410,400 1,319,600 2,830,800 1,319,600 156,400 1,319,600 156,400 2,830,800 — —


Oklahoma – 77 Counties
Adair 21,400 3,000 6,300 27 47 0 27 — — —
Alfalfa 6,000 600 1,100 10 32 0 * — — —
Atoka 14,000 1,500 3,200 15 14 * * — — —
Beaver 5,600 700 1,400 * 14 * * — — —
Beckham 20,000 2,200 4,600 30 71 * 50 — — —
Blaine 11,700 1,400 2,700 37 51 9 36 — — —
Bryan 37,000 4,200 8,900 35 116 * * — — —
Caddo 30,000 4,100 8,200 99 123 17 98 — — —
Canadian 91,100 11,900 24,100 90 161 31 105 — — —
Carter 46,100 5,500 11,700 66 167 * 23 — — —
Cherokee 43,400 5,200 11,000 122 73 16 49 — — —
Choctaw 15,400 1,900 3,900 20 47 * * — — —
Cimarron 3,000 400 800 * * 0 * — — —
Cleveland 215,100 23,700 50,100 296 768 69 219 — — —
Coal 6,000 700 1,600 11 38 * 9 — — —
Comanche 111,800 13,500 31,500 233 444 * 885 — — —
Cotton 6,500 700 1,600 15 37 0 * — — —
Craig 14,800 1,600 3,500 22 27 * 7 — — —
Creek 68,700 8,700 18,000 56 96 0 7 — — —
Custer 25,100 2,700 5,800 43 95 * 17 — — —
Delaware 38,000 4,400 9,000 38 135 0 53 — — —
Dewey 4,600 500 1,000 * * 0 0 — — —
Ellis 4,000 400 800 12 * 0 * — — —
Garfield 57,200 6,400 14,100 116 67 * 6 — — —
Garvin 27,300 3,000 6,600 95 180 33 51 — — —
Grady 46,800 5,700 11,900 100 90 29 36 — — —
Grant 5,000 600 1,200 24 15 * * — — —
Greer 5,900 500 1,100 8 12 0 17 — — —
Harmon 3,100 400 800 8 13 0 7 — — —
Harper 3,500 400 700 6 * 0 0 — — —
Haskell 11,800 1,300 3,000 10 32 * * — — —
Hughes 14,000 1,500 3,100 15 40 0 6 — — —
Jackson 27,400 3,500 7,900 43 72 0 13 — — —
Jefferson 6,500 700 1,500 * 45 0 6 — — —
Johnston 10,400 1,200 2,500 * 20 0 * — — —
Kay 47,700 5,700 12,300 176 128 * * — — —
Kingfisher 13,900 1,700 3,600 9 14 0 6 — — —
Kiowa 10,000 1,200 2,300 34 29 * * — — —
Latimer 10,600 1,200 2,600 8 26 0 * — — —
Le Flore 48,600 5,700 12,500 29 141 * 34 — — —
Lincoln 32,300 4,200 8,400 25 74 0 * — — —
Logan 34,900 4,200 8,300 85 132 * 44 — — —
Love 8,900 1,100 2,200 12 15 0 * — — —
McClain 28,100 3,400 7,100 71 77 7 18 — — —
McCurtain 34,200 4,400 9,400 75 143 * 39 — — —
McIntosh 19,700 2,200 4,400 52 90 7 51 — — —
Major 7,500 900 1,700 10 12 0 * — — —
Marshall 13,600 1,400 3,100 12 25 0 * — — —
Mayes 38,800 4,700 10,000 51 96 6 78 — — —
Murray 12,600 1,300 2,900 23 58 0 6 — — —
Muskogee 69,900 8,000 17,700 84 158 9 73 — — —
Noble 11,300 1,300 2,800 20 15 0 * — — —
Nowata 10,700 1,300 2,700 9 66 * 39 — — —
Okfuskee 11,600 1,300 2,700 47 51 0 * — — —
Oklahoma 671,600 73,600 171,200 2,034 849 145 113 — — —
Okmulgee 39,700 5,000 10,400 49 77 12 55 — — —
Osage 45,200 5,600 11,200 26 103 * 51 — — —
Ottawa 32,900 4,000 8,300 75 127 * 96 — — —
Pawnee 16,800 2,200 4,300 20 49 0 29 — — —
Payne 69,000 5,600 12,800 124 284 14 94 — — —
Pittsburg 44,100 4,900 10,000 70 176 * * — — —
Pontotoc 34,900 3,900 8,400 44 160 * 19 — — —
Pottawatomie 66,800 7,800 16,800 153 263 12 75 — — —
Pushmataha 11,700 1,400 2,900 10 27 0 * — — —


Roger Mills 3,200 300 700 * 12 0 * — — —

Rogers 75,300 10,100 20,400 103 181 19 80 — — —
Seminole 24,600 3,000 6,300 49 89 * 31 — — —
Sequoyah 39,700 5,000 10,600 28 111 0 23 — — —
Stephens 42,600 4,800 10,100 56 124 0 21 — — —
Texas 20,000 2,400 5,700 20 70 0 12 — — —
Tillman 8,900 1,200 2,300 17 48 0 6 — — —
Tulsa 569,900 64,800 149,000 2,432 2,837 165 342 — — —
Wagoner 60,500 7,700 16,100 90 219 22 35 — — —
Washington 49,200 5,900 11,900 132 346 12 123 — — —
Washita 11,400 1,400 2,800 9 25 0 16 — — —
Woods 8,800 800 1,600 7 23 0 * — — —
Woodward 18,500 2,100 4,500 50 48 8 28 — — —
Oregon – 36 Counties
Benton 79,000 7,900 15,900 183 — — — 37 — —
Clackamas 352,400 43,200 88,700 552 — — — 271 — —
Coos 62,600 6,900 13,200 499 — — — 80 — —
Deschutes 125,600 14,600 29,900 458 — — — 144 — —
Douglas 101,200 11,700 23,200 541 — — — 115 — —
Jackson 186,900 21,600 44,200 968 — — — 268 — —
Josephine 77,800 8,900 17,400 500 — — — 129 — —
Klamath 64,300 7,800 16,200 441 — — — 204 — —
Lane 327,000 34,700 72,500 454 — — — 551 — —
Linn 105,100 12,500 26,600 374 — — — 165 — —
Marion 294,900 35,200 79,400 1,245 — — — 757 — —
Multnomah 675,100 65,500 151,800 1,089 — — — 996 — —
Polk 64,800 7,700 15,700 308 — — — 111 — —
Umatilla 72,000 8,800 19,400 258 — — — 86 — —
Washington 472,100 53,300 125,700 518 — — — 469 — —
Yamhill 87,900 10,700 22,800 652 — — — 81 — —
20 Small Counties 374,300 45,000 90,300 2,630 — — — 708 — —
Pennsylvania – 67 Counties
Adams 94,500 11,200 22,600 305 31 — — — — —
Allegheny 1,266,200 129,700 272,600 3,065 1,180 — — — — —
Armstrong 71,800 7,800 15,700 66 59 — — — — —
Beaver 179,200 19,400 39,300 467 148 — — — — —
Bedford 49,900 5,500 11,300 68 9 — — — — —
Berks 381,900 43,800 92,000 982 183 — — — — —
Blair 127,700 13,500 28,000 245 85 — — — — —
Bradford 62,700 7,700 15,400 143 9 — — — — —
Bucks 609,300 73,000 150,400 1,191 9 — — — — —
Butler 178,200 20,000 42,400 295 17 — — — — —
Cambria 150,400 15,000 30,500 618 6 — — — — —
Carbon 59,800 6,500 12,700 153 63 — — — — —
Centre 138,600 11,200 23,500 164 0 — — — — —
Chester 450,000 53,900 114,200 2,074 942 — — — — —
Clearfield 83,400 8,900 18,000 156 13 — — — — —
Columbia 64,500 6,300 12,600 61 45 — — — — —
Crawford 90,100 10,500 21,400 254 24 — — — — —
Cumberland 217,600 22,500 46,300 298 142 — — — — —
Dauphin 252,700 28,500 60,700 1,061 168 — — — — —
Delaware 553,500 64,700 134,500 1,610 95 — — — — —
Erie 282,400 32,700 68,300 925 168 — — — — —


Fayette 146,800 15,500 32,200 265 310 — — — — —

Franklin 131,500 14,500 30,800 322 96 — — — — —
Indiana 89,100 8,800 17,600 140 12 — — — — —
Jefferson 45,800 5,200 10,300 107 46 — — — — —
Lackawanna 211,100 21,900 44,700 433 9 — — — — —
Lancaster 478,600 58,100 124,900 881 338 — — — — —
Lawrence 93,800 10,300 21,100 197 110 — — — — —
Lebanon 121,600 13,200 27,900 324 53 — — — — —
Lehigh 317,300 35,900 75,100 1,089 24 — — — — —
Luzerne 314,800 32,100 64,100 669 161 — — — — —
Lycoming 118,800 13,300 26,700 421 6 — — — — —
McKean 45,500 5,200 10,300 95 9 — — — — —
Mercer 119,800 13,400 27,200 225 65 — — — — —
Mifflin 46,500 5,400 11,200 100 0 — — — — —
Monroe 149,200 19,600 38,400 327 46 — — — — —
Montgomery 764,500 84,800 181,200 1,082 421 — — — — —
Northampton 273,700 30,400 61,700 492 258 — — — — —
Northumberland 93,500 10,000 19,700 285 143 — — — — —
Philadelphia 1,486,700 173,200 372,000 6,633 1,520 — — — — —
Schuylkill 148,800 14,900 29,800 157 149 — — — — —
Somerset 79,600 8,400 16,800 131 14 — — — — —
Venango 56,900 6,800 13,200 174 21 — — — — —
Warren 43,200 5,100 10,000 86 * — — — — —
Washington 203,800 21,000 43,700 217 144 — — — — —
Westmoreland 368,500 39,000 77,900 714 46 — — — — —
York 389,800 45,000 93,400 698 406 — — — — —
20 Small Counties 624,800 71,200 141,700 1,165 190 — — — — —
Population Represented 12,328,500 1,374,200 2,856,000 1,374,200 1,374,200 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 23.02 5.82 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 — — — — —
Rhode Island – 1 State

State Total 1,068,900 115,000 244,500 — — — — — — 7,912
Rates for Reporting State — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting States — — — — — — 1
South Carolina – 46 Counties

Aiken 145,300 15,400 34,900 432 312 76 39 — — —
Anderson 170,300 16,700 39,300 387 373 * * — — —
Beaufort 129,900 11,400 28,700 107 270 14 14 — — —
Berkeley 145,600 16,500 37,600 172 533 73 43 — — —
Charleston 316,900 29,900 71,000 553 1,751 34 89 — — —
Darlington 67,900 7,200 16,700 142 378 53 61 — — —
Dorchester 101,200 12,400 26,300 229 337 106 20 — — —
Florence 127,200 13,300 30,500 155 621 6 157 — — —
Greenville 391,300 37,800 90,600 660 962 162 223 — — —
Greenwood 67,200 6,700 16,000 84 264 34 18 — — —
Horry 206,100 17,500 41,500 681 709 110 134 — — —
Lancaster 62,200 6,500 14,700 127 364 * 37 — — —
Laurens 70,100 7,300 16,300 99 139 37 10 — — —
Lexington 222,800 23,100 53,800 264 950 166 73 — — —
Oconee 68,000 6,200 14,400 63 103 * * — — —
Orangeburg 91,300 9,500 21,600 319 295 155 32 — — —
Pickens 111,400 9,900 23,200 128 240 116 15 — — —
Richland 327,800 32,100 74,500 747 187 45 16 — — —
Spartanburg 259,300 25,800 60,300 310 523 13 99 — — —


Sumter 105,200 11,800 27,600 153 198 * 57 — — —

York 174,000 18,600 42,300 330 490 7 298 — — —
25 Small Counties 744,800 78,800 179,100 1,494 2,099 475 363 — — —
Tennessee – 95 Counties
Anderson 71,700 7,800 16,100 434 0 91 0 7 0 —
Blount 109,700 11,600 24,400 478 274 239 108 8 46 —
Bradley 89,500 9,300 20,700 79 905 15 582 0 * —
Carter 56,900 5,700 11,700 408 7 154 * 28 0 —
Davidson 569,200 52,700 127,700 4,699 6,152 815 874 854 1,301 —
Greene 63,700 6,500 13,800 203 257 113 15 37 31 —
Hamblen 58,400 5,800 13,400 340 287 110 88 33 27 —
Hamilton 309,300 32,800 70,400 2,078 810 801 518 115 34 —
Knox 391,500 38,700 86,100 1,159 745 130 271 344 30 —
Madison 93,400 10,700 23,500 637 150 29 175 0 0 —
Maury 71,500 8,500 18,200 371 42 212 37 26 17 —
Montgomery 136,900 16,500 39,500 380 536 128 154 6 0 —
Putnam 64,100 6,300 13,900 427 211 77 105 20 22 —
Rutherford 195,700 22,000 50,500 596 75 295 * 0 0 —
Sevier 74,300 7,700 16,600 514 669 222 167 23 403 —
Shelby 901,700 112,500 249,700 9,751 1,708 4,306 0 1,709 0 —
Sullivan 152,800 15,400 32,600 443 576 134 236 173 16 —
Sumner 136,500 16,300 34,400 900 822 548 268 36 59 —
Washington 109,200 10,200 22,800 346 373 124 80 23 54 —
Williamson 136,700 18,500 37,900 1,076 513 363 45 93 21 —
Wilson 93,500 11,200 23,700 382 355 139 30 73 * —
74 Small Counties 1,906,100 209,300 446,500 9,738 3,409 4,483 1,959 860 515 —
Texas – 254 Counties

Anderson 54,600 4,600 10,900 89 119 * 42 — — —
Angelina 80,500 8,900 21,100 111 185 * * — — —
Bell 244,700 26,000 71,300 528 566 20 252 — — —
Bexar 1,441,800 158,800 389,600 4,250 3,011 217 1,152 — — —
Bowie 89,600 9,000 20,900 106 544 * 59 — — —
Brazoria 256,900 28,600 68,800 962 818 19 107 — — —
Brazos 153,600 12,200 31,300 699 422 114 179 — — —
Cameron 353,100 45,100 114,000 958 800 12 292 — — —
Collin 568,900 60,800 155,300 770 549 37 104 — — —
Comal 84,700 9,100 20,000 253 132 23 50 — — —
Coryell 74,600 7,600 19,100 85 100 * 45 — — —
Dallas 2,272,700 236,900 614,900 4,048 3,912 16 965 — — —
Denton 488,200 51,200 129,100 892 554 119 145 — — —
Ector 122,400 14,700 34,800 217 482 0 10 — — —
Ellis 120,200 14,800 33,300 160 199 0 6 — — —
El Paso 693,600 85,400 209,900 1,880 995 0 8 — — —
Fort Bend 398,800 52,100 113,500 741 714 86 108 — — —
Galveston 260,800 28,000 65,500 990 522 7 54 — — —
Grayson 113,700 11,900 27,100 174 151 0 * — — —
Gregg 113,200 12,100 28,700 438 381 32 81 — — —
Guadalupe 94,300 11,000 24,600 348 447 20 94 — — —
Harris 3,539,600 389,400 980,000 10,081 3,025 7 3,151 — — —
Harrison 62,300 7,000 15,200 189 149 67 25 — — —
Hays 111,400 10,900 25,300 252 312 * 63 — — —
Henderson 75,600 7,500 17,300 148 102 0 13 — — —
Hidalgo 612,800 79,800 207,000 898 982 77 210 — — —


Hunt 79,900 8,600 19,600 189 137 * 22 — — —

Jefferson 249,000 25,800 60,400 440 775 31 269 — — —
Johnson 135,800 15,800 35,900 243 211 * 39 — — —
Kaufman 78,100 9,200 20,900 110 110 0 8 — — —
Liberty 73,600 8,300 19,000 38 142 * 46 — — —
Lubbock 247,300 24,400 60,100 787 721 70 112 — — —
McLennan 217,200 22,900 54,400 790 727 21 194 — — —
Midland 117,400 14,500 32,600 508 331 * 0 — — —
Montgomery 328,500 38,300 89,100 572 643 40 167 — — —
Nacogdoches 59,200 5,700 13,500 95 70 * 41 — — —
Nueces 314,000 34,700 83,700 829 1,665 54 556 — — —
Orange 84,400 9,300 21,100 156 137 * 60 — — —
Parker 94,700 11,100 23,500 111 143 6 188 — — —
Potter 115,700 12,200 31,500 326 500 * 104 — — —
Randall 106,400 11,200 25,600 220 200 16 36 — — —
San Patricio 67,300 8,400 19,700 177 271 * 183 — — —
Smith 180,800 19,000 45,200 614 207 37 43 — — —
Tarrant 1,525,200 165,600 411,600 3,900 2,828 179 546 — — —
Taylor 124,900 13,100 31,600 252 516 * 9 — — —
Tom Green 103,500 10,900 25,300 452 392 24 93 — — —
Travis 845,600 73,900 197,300 2,430 1,739 82 175 — — —
Victoria 85,100 9,900 23,100 158 828 17 135 — — —
Walker 61,300 4,200 10,200 87 37 * 0 — — —
Webb 206,700 27,100 72,500 727 935 55 206 — — —
Wichita 128,700 12,700 30,900 413 487 * 8 — — —
Williamson 290,500 33,200 81,700 554 452 26 73 — — —
202 Small Counties 3,319,700 367,500 828,200 6,403 7,091 288 2,489 — — —
Utah – 29 Counties
Cache 95,800 11,800 29,800 604 404 113 775 83 0 —
Davis 249,200 37,700 85,300 1,195 1,327 216 625 331 8 —
Salt Lake 917,400 117,100 277,900 7,590 4,028 1,840 1,315 1,063 * —
Utah 391,600 51,900 134,000 2,511 1,301 985 417 279 100 —
Washington 99,600 13,200 30,400 660 719 411 412 90 0 —
Weber 203,400 26,600 62,600 1,490 1,373 383 1,232 605 7 —
23 Small Counties 362,700 54,900 118,600 2,783 2,083 1,235 1,381 551 5 —
Population Represented 2,319,700 313,200 738,500 313,200 313,200 313,200 313,200 738,500 738,500 —
Vermont – 14 Counties
Chittenden 148,500 16,000 33,100 292 — 22 — 275 — —
Rutland 63,300 7,200 13,800 124 — 45 — 27 — —
Washington 58,900 6,600 13,000 136 — 23 — 13 — —
Windsor 57,900 6,700 12,600 106 — 17 — 72 — —
10 Small Counties 287,800 34,600 67,500 773 — 104 — 303 — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,431 — 211 — 690 — —
Virginia – 134 Counties

Albemarle 86,500 9,600 20,100 374 49 56 24 — — —
Arlington 188,700 12,100 32,800 1,056 12 119 14 — — —
Augusta 66,900 7,700 15,300 353 22 106 16 — — —
Chesterfield 270,800 36,600 73,900 2,149 1,337 85 607 — — —


Fairfax 992,400 112,600 253,500 4,155 292 455 272 — — —

Fauquier 59,500 7,600 15,400 281 13 25 * — — —
Hanover 91,900 11,900 24,000 501 114 31 33 — — —
Henrico 268,000 29,500 66,300 1,557 375 197 31 — — —
Henry 57,400 6,100 12,500 290 157 34 42 — — —
Loudoun 203,800 23,800 60,700 1,039 202 67 123 — — —
Montgomery 83,800 6,400 14,000 385 513 63 104 — — —
Pittsylvania 61,800 6,900 14,000 287 30 55 17 — — —
Prince William 310,800 41,000 93,800 2,017 222 161 * — — —
Roanoke 86,500 9,600 19,500 850 192 68 428 — — —
Rockingham 69,000 8,000 16,800 256 24 54 0 — — —
Spotsylvania 102,600 14,000 29,700 763 143 139 77 — — —
Stafford 104,300 15,000 31,600 993 282 62 48 — — —
Alexandria City 129,800 7,500 23,600 570 65 132 139 — — —
Chesapeake City 205,500 27,900 57,600 1,728 241 281 55 — — —
Danville City 47,300 5,200 10,900 503 161 43 63 — — —
Hampton City 144,900 16,100 35,100 1,009 469 49 232 — — —
Lynchburg City 65,000 6,600 14,300 780 24 174 6 — — —
Newport News City 179,700 21,900 51,500 1,320 172 362 125 — — —
Norfolk City 238,300 24,000 58,300 1,999 363 529 287 — — —
Portsmouth City 99,400 11,500 25,800 877 67 27 191 — — —
Richmond City 196,300 18,500 43,900 2,023 441 62 9 — — —
Roanoke City 93,200 9,300 21,600 1,251 186 174 39 — — —
Suffolk City 69,800 8,900 19,100 503 25 18 * — — —
Virginia Beach City 430,900 54,500 118,200 2,612 393 125 264 — — —
105 Small Counties 2,269,100 244,000 508,300 16,137 2,589 2,534 1,052 — — —
Washington – 39 Counties
Benton 150,400 20,300 42,400 773 1,553 59 507 76 — —
Chelan 67,200 8,600 17,900 432 459 55 271 29 — —
Clallam 66,100 7,100 13,700 239 395 71 640 41 — —
Clark 370,100 46,600 102,300 1,137 1,989 85 387 224 — —
Cowlitz 94,700 11,800 24,400 477 848 36 892 160 — —
Grant 77,600 11,000 24,000 724 747 147 213 40 — —
Grays Harbor 68,700 8,200 16,400 173 918 45 484 55 — —
Island 75,600 8,600 18,500 127 435 21 261 65 — —
King 1,758,500 174,900 386,000 3,160 2,235 225 350 706 — —
Kitsap 238,400 29,400 61,000 769 1,630 85 402 169 — —
Lewis 69,700 8,700 17,500 314 452 35 246 102 — —
Pierce 731,300 90,500 194,700 1,746 3,489 84 279 381 — —
Skagit 106,700 12,900 26,800 366 796 42 124 104 — —
Snohomish 632,100 78,100 167,300 1,220 2,925 30 2,394 392 — —
Spokane 427,200 50,400 106,000 230 3,172 0 624 615 — —
Thurston 217,100 25,400 52,300 1,098 886 102 601 84 — —
Walla Walla 56,000 6,300 13,200 192 319 28 71 69 — —
Whatcom 174,100 19,200 40,100 784 650 * 500 92 — —
Yakima 224,500 31,100 69,600 1,057 1,819 47 691 162 — —
20 Small Counties 461,200 54,900 111,800 1,390 2,067 271 1,189 372 — —
West Virginia – 55 Counties

Berkeley 81,500 9,700 20,800 86 94 * 87 — — —
Cabell 95,400 8,500 19,100 366 239 7 11 — — —
Harrison 68,000 7,400 15,500 126 50 40 19 — — —
Kanawha 196,100 19,000 41,700 470 330 44 41 — — —
Marion 56,300 5,400 11,400 7 0 0 0 — — —


Mercer 62,200 5,800 13,000 0 0 0 0 — — —

Monongalia 82,700 6,600 14,600 9 57 * 76 — — —
Ohio 46,300 4,800 9,700 31 104 18 212 — — —
Raleigh 79,300 7,900 16,700 129 47 65 80 — — —
Wood 87,700 9,400 19,900 83 216 * 274 — — —
45 Small Counties 949,700 102,200 211,300 1,108 516 500 583 — — —
Wisconsin – 72 Counties
Brown 232,000 23,800 55,600 280 — 232 — 153 — —
Chippewa 56,300 6,100 13,100 222 — 155 — 33 — —
Dane 441,600 39,200 92,700 1,395 — 211 — 294 — —
Dodge 87,000 8,800 18,900 299 — 234 — 110 — —
Eau Claire 94,100 8,700 19,900 569 — 740 — 169 — —
Fond Du Lac 97,800 10,100 21,800 612 — 358 — 85 — —
Grant 49,400 4,900 10,300 186 — 147 — 30 — —
Jefferson 77,000 7,600 17,100 231 — 46 — 70 — —
Kenosha 154,000 16,900 38,700 736 — 205 — 157 — —
La Crosse 108,000 10,100 23,000 233 — 229 — 88 — —
Manitowoc 82,400 8,700 18,500 415 — 86 — 105 — —
Marathon 126,900 13,900 30,400 309 — 318 — 98 — —
Milwaukee 934,400 95,900 231,600 3,402 — 45 — 970 — —
Outagamie 166,100 18,500 41,400 908 — 380 — 87 — —
Ozaukee 84,000 9,400 19,800 265 — 135 — 43 — —
Portage 67,300 6,500 14,300 520 — 296 — 25 — —
Racine 191,000 20,500 47,000 1,095 — 351 — 133 — —
Rock 154,100 16,600 37,600 1,707 — 565 — 136 — —
St. Croix 68,500 7,600 17,000 128 — 81 — 39 — —
Sheboygan 113,300 11,700 25,900 762 — 776 — 60 — —
Walworth 95,200 9,600 21,100 0 — 0 — 0 — —
Washington 121,000 12,900 28,900 338 — 63 — 70 — —
Waukesha 370,300 40,100 87,300 511 — 370 — 252 — —
Winnebago 158,500 15,200 34,200 1,142 — 670 — 188 — —
Wood 75,400 7,900 17,100 181 — 156 — 52 — —
47 Small Counties 1,234,900 129,000 274,400 5,427 — 6,131 — 894 — —
Population Represented 5,440,400 560,100 1,257,700 560,100 — 560,100 — 1,257,700 — —
Wyoming – 23 Counties
Albany 31,600 2,400 5,600 32 — 11 — 15 — —
Campbell 36,200 5,200 10,400 74 — 11 — 15 — —
Carbon 15,400 1,700 3,500 17 — 7 — 8 — —
Fremont 36,000 4,600 9,400 73 — * — 18 — —
Laramie 83,200 9,700 20,900 117 — 46 — 57 — —
Natrona 67,500 8,100 16,900 73 — 18 — 41 — —
Park 26,000 3,100 5,900 73 — 13 — 23 — —
Sheridan 27,000 3,200 6,100 16 — 42 — 17 — —
Sweetwater 37,300 4,900 10,000 138 — 50 — 18 — —
Uinta 19,800 3,000 6,100 43 — 6 — 18 — —
13 Small Counties 119,300 14,700 28,400 198 — 46 — 93 — —
Number of Reported Cases 854 — 252 — 323 — —

Table Notes
Alabama
Source: State of Alabama, Administrative Office of Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Alaska
Source: Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice
Arizona
Source: Supreme Court, State of Arizona, Administrative Office of the Courts
Arkansas
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Arkansas
California
Source: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Judicial Council of California supplied data on delinquency and status offense cases disposed with a peti-
tion in calendar years 2001 or 2002 for all counties that did not independently provide automated delin-
quency and status offense data to NCJJ, or were not included in the automated file supplied by the
California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center.
2. Dependency figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 2001 or 2002. The Judicial Council
of California supplied dependency figures for all counties, including those counties that independently
provided their automated delinquency and status offense data to NCJJ.
3. No dependency data are available for Trinity County for 2001 or 2002. Data for Fresno County were only
available in 2002. Data for Modoc County were only available through February 2001. Data for Humboldt
County were only available through June 2002.
California
Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center
California: Alameda County

Source: Alameda County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)
Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)
California: San Bernardino County

Source: San Bernardino County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)


California: Santa Clara County

Source: Santa Clara County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)
California: Ventura County

Source: Ventura County Probation Agency (delinquency and status cases)
Colorado
Source: Colorado Judicial Department
Mode: FY 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports: Statistical Supplement
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2001 or 2002. They include delinquency and
status offense cases.
2. Status figures were reported with delinquency cases.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2001 or 2002.
Connecticut
Source: Judicial Branch Administration, Court Support Services Division
3. Juvenile venue districts established by the State report data.
Delaware
Source: Family Court, State of Delaware
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are filings in calendar year 2001 or 2002.
2. Delinquency figures do not include traffic cases.
3. There is no statute on status offenders in this state; therefore, the court handles no status offense cases.
4. Dependency figures are filings in calendar year 2001 or 2002.
District of Columbia
Source: Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Florida
Source: State of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
2. Status figures are cases disposed. They represent only those cases disposed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. Cases disposed by the Florida Network, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s major con-
tracted provider of CINS/FINS centralized intake, are not included in these figures.
Georgia: all counties not listed in the following note

Source: Judicial Council of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: AOC publications, Caseload of the Georgia Courts 2001 and 2002
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2001 or 2002.
2. Status figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2001 or 2002.

3. Dependency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2001 or 2002.
4. Delinquency, status, and dependency figures may include a small percentage of children disposed without
a petition.
Georgia: the counties of Bartow, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clarke (2002 only), Clayton, Coweta, Dawson,
Dougherty, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Murray, Muscogee, Newton, Spalding, Troup, Walker, Walton,
Ware, Whitfield
Source: Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges
Hawaii
Source: Family Court of the First Circuit, The Judiciary, State of Hawaii
Idaho
Source: Idaho Supreme Court
Mode: Idaho Courts 2001 and 2002 Annual Report Appendices.
2. Status figures are reported with delinquency cases.
Illinois
Source: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Probation Services Division
Mode: 2001 and 2002 Probation Statistics
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions filed.
2. Status figures are the number of petitions filed. Minor requiring authoritative intervention (MRAI) and tru-
ancy counts were summed to determine status figures. Petitions for Putnam County and Scott County are
reported with other counties.
3. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed.
Illinois: Cook County

Source: Juvenile Court of Cook County
Indiana
Source: Supreme Court of Indiana, Division of State Court Administration
Mode: 2001 and 2002 Indiana Judicial Service Reports, Volume II (petitioned) and 2001 and 2002 Indiana Judicial
Service Report Probation Reports (nonpetitioned)
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Indiana: Marion County

Source: Marion County Superior Court
Data: 1. Delinquency cases are cases disposed.
2. Status cases are cases disposed.

Iowa
Source: State Court Administrator
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions.
2. Dependency, which consists of CINA and FINA figures, are the number of petitions.
3. Dependency includes status offense cases.
Kansas
Source: Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of Judicial Administration
Mode: Annual Report of the Courts of Kansas
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are juvenile offender filings disposed for fiscal year 2001 or 2002.
Louisiana
Source: Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Mode: 2001and 2002 Annual Reports
Data: 1. Total figures are new cases filed in district court. They include petitioned and nonpetitioned delinquency,
dependency, status offense, special proceeding, and traffic cases.
2. Figures shown for Caddo, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, and Orleans Parishes include juvenile felony, mis-
demeanor, and status offense cases referred through an administrative remedy process.
Maine
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
2. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed.
Maryland
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice
Massachusetts
Mode: Massachusetts Court System Juvenile Court Department, Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002 Statistics
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are complaints disposed and include motor vehicle violations.
2. Status figures are petitions disposed.
4. A charge is a single count alleged in a juvenile complaint.
5. Hampshire County figures are reported with Franklin County.
Michigan
Source: State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions disposed.
2. Status figures are petitions disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitions disposed.
Minnesota
Source: Minnesota Supreme Court Information System
Mississippi (2001 data onlyl)

Source: Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services


Missouri
Source: Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services
Montana
Source: Montana Board of Crime Control
Nebraska
Source: Nebraska Crime Commission
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
4. In Douglas County, only those cases processed through the county attorney’s office were reported.
Nevada
Source: Division of Child and Family Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Office
New Hampshire
Source: New Hampshire Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are juvenile filings.
2. Status figures are juvenile filings.
3. Dependency figures are juvenile filings.
New Jersey
New Mexico
Source: Children, Youth, and Families Department
New York
Source: Office of Court Administration (petitioned cases) and the State of New York, Division of
Probation and Correctional Alternatives (nonpetitioned cases)
4. The petition information reflects data reported to the Office of Court Administration. It may not necessari-
ly reflect the total number of cases processed through the court system.

5. Data for nonpetitioned cases for Onondaga County are only available for 11 months in 2001. Data for non-
petitioned cases for Orange County are only available for 4 months in 2001. Data for nonpetitioned cases
for Rockland County are only available for 5 months in 2001. Data for nonpetitioned cases for Warren
County are only available for 9 months in 2002.
North Carolina
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during calendar year 2001 or 2002.
2. Status figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during calendar year 2001 or 2002.
3. Dependency figures are conditions alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 2001. They include
dependent, neglected, and abused conditions. No dependency data were available for 2002.
North Dakota
Source: Supreme Court, Office of State Court Administrator
Ohio
Source: Supreme Court of Ohio
Mode: Ohio Courts Summary, 2001 and 2002
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petition terminations.
2. Status figures are unruly petition terminations.
3. Dependency figures include dependency, neglect, and abuse petition terminations.
Ohio: Cuyahoga County

Source: Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Division
Oklahoma
Source: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
Oregon (2001 data only)

Source: Office of the State Court Administrator
Mode: Statistical Report Relating to the Circuit Courts of the State of Oregon, First Half 2002
Data: 1. Total figures are juvenile petitions filed. They include delinquency, status offense, dependency, special
proceedings, and termination of parental rights cases.
2. The Circuit Courts in Gilliam, Morrow, Sherman and Wheeler Counties do not have jurisdiction over juve-
nile petition adjudications except for those involving termination of parental rights.
Oregon (2002 data only)

Source: Oregon Judicial Department
Mode: Statistical pages supplied to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.
2. Dependency figures are petitions filed. They include status offense, dependency, special proceedings, and
termination of parental rights cases.
3. The Circuit Courts in Gilliam, Morrow, Sherman and Wheeler Counties do not have jurisdiction over juve-
nile petition adjudications except for those involving termination of parental rights.

Pennsylvania
Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission
2. Status offenses in Pennsylvania are classified as dependency cases, which were not reported.
3. Figures presented here do not match those found in the 2001 and 2002 Pennsylvania Juvenile Court
Disposition Report, due to differing units of count.
Rhode Island
Source: Administrative Office of State Courts
Mode: Rhode Island Judiciary Annual Report 2003
Data: 1. Total figures are the number of adoption/guardianship, dependency/neglect/abuse, termination of parental
rights, violations, and wayward/delinquent filings.
2. The data were reported at the State level; no county breakdown was available.
South Carolina
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice
South Dakota (2001 data only)

Source: Unified Judicial System
3. Shannon County is an American Indian reservation that handles juvenile matters in the tribal court, which
is not part of the State’s juvenile court system.
Tennessee
Source: Tennessee Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Texas
Source: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission
Utah
Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts
Vermont
Source: Vermont Supreme Court, Judiciary Data Warehouse
Mode: Statistical page sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 137

Virginia
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice and the Virginia Supreme Court
3. Fairfax City reports with Fairfax County.
4. Data for 2001 are incomplete due to reporting difficulties at the local level.
Washington
Source: Office of the Administrator for the Courts
Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status) and Superior Court 2001 and 2002 and Annual
Caseload Reports (dependency)
3. Wakiakum County reports with Pacific County; Garfield County reports with Asotin County; Franklin
County reports with Benton County.
4. King County reports only delinquency data that contribute to an individual’s criminal history record
information.
5. Differences in data entry practices among the juvenile courts may contribute to variations in the data.
6. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed. They may include dependency, termination of
parent/child relationship, truancy, at-risk youth, and alternative residential placement cases.
West Virginia
Source: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center
Wisconsin
Source: Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Wyoming
Source: Supreme Court of Wyoming Court Services
Mode: Wyoming District Courts 2001 and 2002 Caseload Statistics
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.
2. Status figures are petitions filed.
3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.

Index of Tables and Figures
Delinquency Intake decision, see Manner of handling Gender, 12–14, 16, 17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50
Adjudication Manner of handling (petitioned, Manner of handling, 30–33, 39
Age, 42 nonpetitioned) Offense, 6–9, 11–14, 16–20, 22–24,
Gender, 42 Age, 32 26–38, 40–51
Offense, 39–43 Case counts, 30, 31 Placement, 44–47
Race, 43 Gender, 32 Probation, 48–51
Trends, 39–43 Offense, 30–33 Race, 18–20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43,
Age Race, 33 47, 51
Adjudication, 42 Trends, 30–33, 39 Source of referral, 24
Case flow diagram, 56 Offense Waiver, 34–38
Case rates, 9–11, 15–17, 21–23 Adjudication, 39–43 Waiver
Detention, 28 Age, 9–11, 15–17, 21–23, 28, 32, 36, 42, Age, 36
Gender, 15–17 46, 50 Case counts, 34, 38
Manner of handling, 32 Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 34, Gender, 36
Offense, 9–11, 15–17, 21–23, 28, 32, 36, 38–40, 44, 48 Offense, 34–38
42, 46, 50 Case flow diagrams, 54, 55, 60–63 Race, 37, 38
Placement, 46 Case rates, 8, 10, 11, 14–17, 20–23 Trends, 34–38
Probation, 50 Detention, 26, 27
Race, 21–23 Gender, 12–17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50 Status Offense
Trends, 9, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, 32, 36, Manner of handling, 30–33 Adjudication
42, 46, 50 Placement, 44–47 Age, 70
Waiver, 36 Probation, 48–51 Gender, 70
Case counts Race, 18–23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43, 47, 51 Offense, 70
Case flow diagrams, 52, 54–59 Source of referral, 24 Race, 70
Detention, 26 Trends, 6–9, 11–14, 16–20, 22–24, 26–38, Age
Gender, 12 40–51 Adjudication, 70
Manner of handling, 30, 31 Waiver, 34–38 Detention, 68
Offense, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 34, 38–40, Petitioned and nonpetitioned, see Offense, 66, 68, 70, 71
44, 48 Manner of handling Placement, 71
Placement, 44 Placement (out-of-home) Probation, 71
Probation, 48 Age, 46 Case flow diagram, 72
Race, 18, 38 Case counts, 44 Detention
Trends, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 32, 38, 40, Gender, 46 Age, 68
44, 48 Offense, 44–47 Gender, 69
Waiver, 34, 38 Race, 47 Offense, 68, 69
Case flow diagrams, 52–63 Trends, 44–47 Race, 69
Age, 56 Probation Gender
Gender, 57 Age, 50 Adjudication, 70
Offense, 54, 55, 60–63 Case counts, 48 Detention, 69
Race, 58, 59 Gender, 50 Offense, 67, 69–71
Case rates Offense, 48–51 Placement, 71
Age, 9–11, 15–17, 21–23 Race, 51 Probation, 71
Gender, 14–17 Trends, 48–51 Offense
Offense, 8, 10, 11, 14–17, 20–23 Race Adjudication, 70
Race, 20–23 Adjudication, 43 Age, 66, 68, 70, 71
Trends, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23 Age, 21–23 Case flow diagram, 72
Detention Case counts, 18, 38 Detention, 68, 69
Age, 28 Case flow diagram, 58, 59 Gender, 67, 69–71
Case counts, 26 Case rates, 20–23 Placement, 71
Gender, 28 Detention, 27, 29 Probation, 71
Offense, 26, 27 Manner of handling, 33 Race, 67, 69–71
Race, 27, 29 Offense, 18–23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43, 47, 51 Placement (out-of-home)
Trends, 26–29 Placement, 47 Age, 71
Gender Probation, 51 Gender, 71
Adjudication, 42 Trends, 18–20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43, Offense, 71
Age, 15–17 47, 51 Race, 71
Case counts, 12 Waiver, 37, 38 Probation
Case flow diagram, 57 Source of referral, 24 Age, 71
Case rates, 14–17 Transfer to criminal court, see Waiver Gender, 71
Detention, 28 Trends Offense, 71
Manner of handling, 32 Adjudication, 39–43 Race, 71
Offense, 12–17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50 Age, 9, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, 32, 36, Race
Placement, 46 42, 46, 50 Adjudication, 70
Probation, 50 Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 32, 38, Detention, 69
Trends, 12–14, 16, 17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 40, 44, 48 Offense, 67, 69–71
46, 50 Case rates, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23 Placement, 71
Waiver, 36 Detention, 26–29 Probation, 71

OJJDP’s Statistical
Briefing Book online
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
The Briefing Book is a comprehensive online resource describing various topics

related to delinquency and the juvenile justice system, including the latest
information on juveniles living in poverty, teen birth rates, juvenile victims of
violent crime, trends in juvenile arrest rates, and youth in residential placement
facilities. The Briefing Book is also a repository for more detailed presentations of
juvenile court data than are found in the annual Juvenile Court Statistics report.
◆ Under the “Juveniles in Court” section of the Statistical Briefing Book users will find
the latest statistical information on trends in the volume of cases handled by the
nation’s juvenile courts and the court’s response (e.g., detention, adjudication, and
disposition decisions) to these cases. Juvenile court data are displayed in an easy-to-
read, ready-to-use format, using tables and graphs.
◆ The Briefing Book’s “Juveniles in Court” section includes an interactive tool that
describes how specific types of delinquency cases typically flow through the juvenile
justice system. Annual summaries are available from 1985 to present for more than
25 offense categories, and include separate presentations for males and females.
State Juvenile Justice Profiles

www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/
The State Juvenile Justice Profiles Web site features rich, descriptive
information regarding the laws, policies, and practices of each state’s
juvenile justice system, with links to individuals and agencies in the
field. National overviews summarize information across states.
National Center for Juvenile Justice
the research division of the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
3700 South Water Street, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363
412–227–6950
www.ncjj.org

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Juvenile Court

The annual Juvenile Court

◆ Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive Web-based application

National Center for Juvenile Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 i

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

To ensure informed decisionmaking and policy development, the juvenile court

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 iii

This Report is a product of the Na- agencies contributed case-level data

The entire staff of the National Juve- Arizona—Supreme Court, State of

Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior Arkansas—Administrative Office of

Anne L. Stahl, Project Manager Colorado—Colorado Judicial

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 v

District of Columbia—Superior Court Michigan— State Court Administra- Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of

Florida—State of Florida Department Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme Oregon—Judicial Department;

Illinois—Administrative Office of the Nebraska—Nebraska Crime South Dakota—Unified Judicial

vi Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Foreword .................................................................................................................... iii

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 vii

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 ix

x Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

This Report describes delinquency eventually merged the two referrals

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 1

2 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 3

4 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 5

Counts and Trends

6 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Counts and Trends

2 The annual series of reports from the FBI,

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 7

■ The total delinquency case rate

8 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

0% Offense profiles of delinquency

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 9

■ The increase in case rates between

10 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

5 Ages 10–12 Ages 10–12

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 11

12 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Percent of cases involving females

Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 13

■ Female drug offense case rates

14 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

■ For females, only the drug offense

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 15

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

16 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 17

substantially from that of 1985 for all 20,000 ●

Person Public order

4 Throughout this Report, juveniles of Hispanic

18 Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002

Proportion of delinquency cases Racial profile of delinquency

■ Although white youth represented the

Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 19